
:^ 



i 



THE 






BY AN OUD WHIG, 



' \ TM'.Ji- 



,I,S 



*' TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE aUESTION.- 



j> 



' ■* 



NEW-YORK 



PRINTFJD FOR THE AUTHOR. 



%m«mmm 



January, IS 10, 



^ 5^'' 
/^ 



i'siO 



\t 






THE 



NEW CEISISc 



JVIR. L\CKSON, the British minister, has been 
a^'^uptly dismisL^ed by the President. Is the 
.. .e of the rupture generally understood ? An 
'! Tence, by implication^ is alleged to have been 
v-v>mmitted, yet the diplomatic letters of our Se- 
cretary, in which it is advanced, are so obscurely 
written, that he who wishes to justify the Presi- 
dent by a discovery of the aftront, may have no ob- 
jection to a commentator. But as illustration is 
sometimes more copious than the text, 1 will no fur- 
ther trouble the reader with preface, than to pro- 
mise, that while I hope to be sufficiently com- 
prehensive to embrace all the material points in 
the discussion, I will not lose sight of a necessa- 
ry brevity. 



Marshal Angercau proclaimed, when com* 
manding his imperial myrmidons in oppressed 
Spain, that " Europe is submitting and sur- 
rendering by degrees."* This was a full and 
clear annunciation of his Imperial majesty's in- 
tention. Europe is to submit and surrender! 
With one exception, Angereau was, in point of 
fact, correct. The Russian Bear is enchained 
in his forest — there let him perish. The power of 
Austria is broken into " fragments utterly harm- 
less and contemptible." Spain and Portugal can 
no longer hope for independence. The sword and 
the throne of Frederick have been transferred to 
the universal conqueror. Sweden and Denmark 
are encircled by his arms. Naples and the Italian 
States, Switzerland and the United Provinces, 
lie prostrate at his feet. The Ottoman empire, 
trembling on its base, lives by sufferance. All 
Europe, but England, is annihilated by France. 
If England submits and surrenders, can ive be 
saved ? Would Bonaparte spare us .? 

He who is disposed to explore the principle of 
a power so tremendous and overwhelming, may 
readily discover it in the triumphant establish- 
ment of the military faculty upon the ruins of 



* Proclamation to the Catalouians. The authenticity of 
this atrocious paper is admitted by our executive, in its cor- 
respondence with Mr. Jackson, 



commerce. Lewis the XIV. ambitious beyond 
all modern example, ^\'as unable, great and 
splendid as his power was, either materially to 
injure his neighbours, or essentially to enlarge his 
dominions. Yet the population oi"" France then 
was but httle if at all inferior to the population of 
the republic, when Napoleon placed himself upon 
the throne of the Bourbons. But Lewis had al- 
ways an eye to commerce^ for whose extension he 
in some measure fought j and he carried on his 
wars to the utmost limit which the preservation of 
it w ould admit. Bonaparte has, however, inverted 
all former maxims. That which Lewis could not 
do upon the basis of commerce, Napoleon has 
effected upon its subversion. Nor could a regu- 
lar monarch, however disposed, have possessed 
advantages similar to those of the usurper. The 
revolutionary spirit, let loose to carnage and to 
prey, converted France into a nation of madmen. 
Amid the general riot, agriculture was abandon- 
ed to the very brink of famine. Commerce waS 
spurned as something beneath the sublimated 
notions of the inhabitants of Bedlam. The very 
foundations of the nation were broken up, and 
all was ferocious and brutal uproar. Here Napo- 
leon fell upon the tri-coloured visionaries. Here 
he surprised the sons of liberty and equality, and 
stripped them of their soul-animating caps. The 
v^ry act of Usurpation incretised. the general anti- 



6 

pathy to commerce, and heightened the military 
rage. The consuhir power, assumed by violence, 
was to be founded by the sword. Conquests 
were to charm the ciiizefis into obedience. They 
have done so. 

Under these circumstances, is it wonderful that 
Napoleon, having completed the destruction of 
Itie commerce of continental Europe, and found- 
ed his power u])on it, should endeavor to spread 
the devastation all over the world ? 

He has another motive. He cannot subdue 
Great Britain whilst she preserves her commeicial 
prosperity. He cannot subdue us whilst she is 
unconquered. He has therefore attacked the 
commerce of England ; he has therefore attacked 
the commerce of the United States, and upon the 
success of his experiment will depend the exist- 
ence of both nations. 

Unfortunately for us, if not for Great Britain, 
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison are animated by 
prejudices to an opposition to commerce and to 
England, which are as injurious in their opera- 
tion and may be as fatal in their effects, as the 
baleful designs of Napoleon. The two Presidents 
are equally adverse to connnerce ; possibly be- 
cause they are of opinion, contrary to all history 
and experience, that commerce is unfriendly to 
freedom. Be the reason, however, what it may. 



the fact is, In my judgment, indubitable.* Nor 
are their enmity to Great Britain, probably arising 
from our revolutionary war, and their predilec- 
tion for France, occasioned by the same cause, 
less problematical. Both are cherished by the two 
Presidents to a degree which has already greatly 
irvjured and may linally undo us. And whether 
designedly and understandingly or not, which are 
strongly suspected, both have powerfully co-ope- 
rated with Bonaparte, in his in;i})lacable hostility 
to his European antagonist. Those am.ongst us 
who have attentively observed the very partial 
and mysterious conduct of the President for the 
last three years, will not be disposed seriously to 
arraign the correctness of my opinion. To that 
conduct are attributable the evils which we have 



* During the fatal embargo, Mr. Jcffei'scn wrote, amongst 
other things equally curious, the following remarks, in ansver 
to an adulatory address of the Legislature of New-Hampshire. 
" I see with satisfaction, that our real citizens are preparing 
with spirit, to provide for themselves those comforts and con- 
veniences of life, for which it would be wtiuise ever more 
TO RECUR to difiiunt countries.''^ 

V/hat language could be more hostile to commerce than 
this ? China i-ecurs not to distant countries for comforcs and 
conveniences. Were we to imitate the Chinese .' If we want 
net the comforts and conveniences which Europe furnishcb, 
surely Europe ought not to import comforts and conveniences 
from us. The ocean, according to Mr. JeflTeisou, was to be 
abandoned. We were to raise our own food and make our 
own clothes — possibly after the manner of ihc ludiaus. 



1> 



8 

suffered, the calamities which we have yet to 
bear, and the national extinction with which 
we are obviously threatened. 

The predetermined and prompt, the unprovok- 
ed and insolent dismission of Mr. Jackson, which 
is intended by the President to force England to 
a declaration of war against us, is the necessary 
result of a train of measures, deliberately com- 
menced by Mr. Jefferson in the year 1 806, art- 
fully and systematically persevered in by him to 
the termination of his official career, and then 
cordially embraced and since ardently pursued 
) by his successor. He who will do me the honor 
to accompany me in the full but short investiga- 
tion into which I propose to enter, will neither 
mistake the design nor be surprised at the issue. 

My position is this — that to throw the United 
States into the arms of Bonaparte, in the inter- 
minable war which he has waged against Great- 
Britain, as well as against the liberty and inde- 
pendence of the world, Mr. Jefferson has delibe- 
rately embarrassed our negociations with her, 
and purposely prevented an amicable adjustment 
of our differences, in the hope of finally provok- 
ing a war, which he feared our citizens would 
not support, unless thus commenced against us. 



The first symptom of this alarming design was 
exhibited in the rejection of Mr. Monroe's treaty, 
which v>7a3 concluded by that gentleman and Mr. 
Pinkney, subject to the ratification of the Presi- 
dent and the Senate, on the 31st of December, 
1806. The treaty, as formed, comprehended 
and adjusted, as far as is practicable, the com- 
merce and difierences of the two nations. The 
temporary articles of Mr. Jay's treaty had expir- 
ed. The mutual convenlencies of both nations 
pointed to a substitute. A permanent treaty, de- 
sired by England, was essential to us. On the 
27th of December, 1806, (but five days previous 
to the signing of the treaty in London) Messrs. 
Munroe and Pinkney wrote to our government 
as follows : " We have the pleasure to acquaint 
you that we have this day agreed with the British 
commissioners to conclude a treaty on all the 
points which hr^d formed the object of our nego- 
tiation, and on terms which we trust our govern- 
ment xvill approved 

But before the treaty was signed, and, of 
course, transmitted to the President, information 
was received in London, that Bonaparte, having 
taken the Prussian capital, and seated himself on 
the Prussian throne, had issued his Berlin decree, 
blockading Great Britain, and subjecting to cap- 
ture the commerce of the world. 

2 



10 

This decree fonr.ed an aera of a new species of 
warfare. Ttie etiemy of commerce now attacked 
her in her capital. This was precisely the species 
of hostility which Mr. Jefferson had always de- 
scribed as the only efficient one against the 
** whore of Babylon." British rights were invad- 
ed by it : our rights were also invaded. The 
rights of all nations were trampled upon by the 
Imperial tyrant. What then was England to 
do ? What should we have done ? Both ques- 
tions shall be answered. 

England did more for us in the way of 
amity than by the law of nations or by common 
courtesy she was obliged to do. The day on 
which the treaty was signed in London by the 
commissioners on both sides, Lords Holland and 
Auckland, the two British commissioners, pre- 
sented a note to our ministers, announcing the 
passage of the Berlin decree, end describing its 
illegal provisions and purposes : the note is con- 
cluded in the following terms : 

" The undersigned consideiing that the dis- 
tance of the American government renders any 
immediate explanation on this subject impossible, 
and animated by a desire of forwarding the bene- 
ficial work in which they are engaged, are autho- 
rised by his majesty to conclude the treaty with- 
out delay. They proceed to the signature under 
the full persuasion ihat before the treaty shall be 



n 

returned from America with the ratification of 
the United States, the enemy will either have for- 
mally abandoned or tacitly relinquished his un- 
just pretensions, or that the government of th© 
United States, by its conduct or assurances, will 
have given security to his majesty that it will not 
submit to such innovations in the established sys- 
tem of maritime law : and the uiidersigned have 
presented this note from an anxious wish that it 
should be clearly understood on both sides, that 
without such an abandonment on the part of ihe 
enemy, or such assurances, or such conduct on 
the part of the United States, his majesty will noli 
consider himself bound by the present signature 
of his conmiissioners to ratify the treaty, or pre- 
cluded from adopting such measures as may seem 
necessary for counteracting toe designs of his 
enemy." 

The intention of the British government is here 
clearly and honourably expressed. England, be- 
fore she resorted to measures of a nature calcu- 
lated to counteract the Berlin decree, consented 
to await the decision of the United States upon 
it. If we thought fit to submit to the tyranny 
of Napoleon, she would " adopt such measures 
as would counteract his designs" upon herself; 
but if, on the other hand, either by the " con- 
duct or assurances of our government, security'* 
was given— for what ? simply that we would not 



12 

submit to this flagrant infraction of the rights of 
all nations, and especially of our own, she would 
adopt no retaliating measures : in other words, 
she would not pass the Orders in Council. What 
less could she require ? What else, if true to 
ourselves, and not criminally partial to France, 
could we do ? 

The treaty, thus made " upon aU the points of 
the negotiation, and on terms which the govern- 
ment" should have approved, with the candid and 
perspicuous note of the British commissioners an- 
nexed, was received by Mr. Jefferson. This was 
a banquet for the man who had long waged in 
theory against England precisely the same war- 
fare which Napoleon had now waged in fact. 
Here was a golden opportunity for the gratifica- 
tion of deep-rooted prejudice and long cherished 
enmity, which Mr. Jeft'erson could not let slip. 
Faithful to himself, but fatally for his country, he 
availed himself of it. The question presented for 
his decision was plainly this — Will you submit to 
the Berlin decree ? If you do, the treaty which 
we have signed is void ; we tell you so honestly : 
if you do not, then it is ratified and will go into 
full operation ; no retaliating measures will be 
passed, nor will the peace or the commerce of 
the two nations be interrupted. Mr. Jefferson 
submitted ! He did so not only with cheerful- 
ness but with joy ! He sent back the treaty un- 



13 

ratified. He sent back the treaty without deign- 
ing to submit it to the Senate, his constitutional 
adviser ! He remanded it with indignation, and 
in terms calculated, by their oftensiveness, to 
spirit up, on the part of England, more than in- 
stant retaliating measures. The rejection of the 
treaty was notified to the British secretary of 
state, by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, in July, 
1807. In the following month, the Horizon, of 
Charleston, stranded on the coast of France, and 
in that condition seized, was condemned by the 
prize court of Paris, under the Berlin decree. 

To attribute this conduct to a wish on the part 
of Mr. Jefferson to be upon terms of amity with 
Great Britain, is not within the compass of can- 
dor and discernment. Messrs. Monroe and Piiik- 
ney (and the fact has not been noticed by any 
writer or speaker) stated to Mr. Jefferson in their 
letter accompanying the treaty,* the strong re- 
pugnance which was felt by the British commis- 
sioners to proceeding with the negociation, after 
they were officially informed of the Berlin de- 
cree. " This circumstance, Messrs. Monroe and 
Pinkney say, prod^iced a strong impression on 
this government, which was very aeriously felt 
in our concerns. It seemed probable for some 
days that it would subject the negotiation to a 

* January 3, liQ7. 



14 

long suspension, if it did not entirely defeat its 
object. The British commissioners informed us, 
that the decree of the government of France, had 
opposed a powerful obstacle to the conclusion of 
any treaty with us, before our government should 
be consulted on the subject, and its answer ob- 
tained as to the part it might take in regard ta 
it ', that in case the United States submitted to a 
violation of their neutral rights by France in the 
manner contemplated by that decree, it would be 
impossible for Great Britain to respect them." 
But upon receiving assurances from Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinkney, that our government, feel- 
ing, as they supposed, the pride, and knowing the 
duties of a neutral and independent nation, 
would duly resist the Berlin infringement on our 
rights. Lords Holland and Auckland were reluc- 
tantly induced to go on with the negociation, and 
eventually to sign the treaty. They nevertheless 
thought it proper to deliver, on the signing of the 
instrument, the note which was annexed to it, 
and from which I have already made a liberal 
extract. 

An inference, extremely favourable to England 
and unfavourable to us, here powerfully attracts 
our notice. England had no wish to go on with the 
treaty after she had heard of the Berlin decree. 
She was anxious to break up the negociation. 
She wished not to be prevented, by a new con- 



15 

nexion, from resorting to those measures which 
France had rendered indispensable. Her desire 
was instantly to retort the decree upon the enemy, 
and she would have done so, but lor the assur- 
ances given by our ministers, that the President 
would vindicate the rights of his country against 
the maritime usurpations of France. Upon this 
assurance, and merely to accommodate us, (for 
so it appears from Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney's 
letter) the British commissioners again advance 
to the negociation, and sign the treaty ; forego re- 
taliating measures, and await the decision of the 
President. We have already seen what that de- 
cision v^as. instead of answering the just expec- 
tations of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, and of 
complimenting England on suspending, out of 
complr.iiiince to us, a just retaliation of the Ber- 
lin decree, Mr. Jefferson was pleased to consider 
the generous suspension in the light of an insult, 
and to ground upon it, principally, the rejection 
of the treaty ! " The declaration, relative to the 
French decree of tiie 2 1 st of November last, by 
which his majesty's plenipotentiaries accompanied 
their signature of the treat}^ creates unnecessary 
embarrassments in the way of an acceptance of 
the treaty by the United States."! Unhappy 



t Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney's letter to Mr. Secretary 
Canning, July 24, 1807. 



16 

ministers I little did you think your executive 

would so soon oblige you thus to write, when, 

alluring the Britisli commissioners to negociate 

and sign the treaty, you gave them assurances, 

that the President would vindicate the rights and 
honor of his country against the encroachments 

and insults of Napoleon. 

To such a vindication Mr. Jefferson was urged 
by every consideration of national rights, interest, 
duty, and honour. To us the Berlin decree was 
doubly offensive : it not only grossly violated, as 
General Armstrong remarked, t our convention 
with France of 1800, but it was moreover an 
outrage on national law. Being, therefore, an 
act thus insolently infringing on o,ur unboubted 
rights, tame submission to it by no means comport- 
ed either with the duty of theFresident,or with the 
honour of the nation. And with regard to national 
interest, it is manifest that our aljject submission 
forced into existence, most probably as Mr. Jeffer- 
son desired, the Orders in Council. Facts per- 
suade us, even against our inclination, that these 
bad acts were the necessary effects of improper 
motives. Instead of endeavouring to conciliate 
the alarms of England in respect to the Berlin 
decree, and of meeting her fair and friendly pro- 
position in a corresponding temper, we see Mr. 

\ Letter, Paris, November 12, 1807. 



17 

Jefterson passionately uttering the language of 
reproach, at a becoming suggestion of what was 
our duty, and a manly declaration, if we neglect- 
ed to perform it, of what, self preservation and 
the niaiotenance of national law imposed upon 
England. And whilst the late President was 
thus provoking in London counteracting measures 
on the pare of the British government, he w^as 
cautiously silent in Paris. A'o instri/cticns were 
given to General Armstrong duly to oppose the 
Berlin decree. Not a single despatch of that na- 
mre was sent to him at Paris when the treaty 
was remanded to London, although, at that time, 
the Berlin decree had been three mofiths officially 
known to the President ! How shall we account 
for this omission ? Does it not amount to some- 
thing more than mere acquiescence in the decree? 
But without waiting for instructions, (for I must 
repeat, that General Armstrong was not instructed 
to remonstrate in earnest against the decree, un- 
til after the passage of the embargo act, that is, 
until one year after the date of the decree) with- 
out, I say, waiting for instructions, the General, 
I think it has been said, did remonstrate ; but this 
is a mistake. He did not remonstrate before the 
Horizon was condemned, which was in August; 
that is, 72ine months after the passage of the decree; 
and even then he did so without the requisite 
instructions! He did, indeed, in December, 

3 



IB 

1806, make a careless unofficial enquiry of De- 
cres, minister of marine, who very sarcastically 
answered him as follows : " It will not escape 
General Armstrong that my answers cannot have 
the developement which they would receive from 
the minister of exterior relations, and that it is 
naturally to him that he oi/ght to address himself 
for these explanations, which I am veiy happy 
to give him, because he wishes them, but upon 
which I have much less positive information than 
the Prince of Beneventum." All this the Gene- 
ral put very quietly into his pocket, and like a 
true modern philosopher was content. He had 
found out that the minister of marine had nothing 
fo do with the business, and that was sufficient ! 
Here the matter ended, for knowing, in all pro- 
bability, the wishes of the President, he was not 
disposed to address himself to the proper organ of 
the im})erial government. 

Meanwhile occurred a transaction exceedingly 
auspicious to the views of Mr. Jefferson. On the 
22dof June, 1807, the Leopard made upon the 
Chesapeake the attack which is so well known, and 
which has been so often described. On this unhap- 
py circumstance the then President seized w ith an 
avidity, and, as lie thought, a craftiness, which 
could not fail to answ^er his purposes against En- 
gland. That reparation proportioned to the ofr 
fence was due, i«? certain, for although the eon- 



19 

gcious employment of British deserters from the 
squad rjn, in defiance of the official remonstrances 
of their officers, and in contempt of neutral duty, 
might extenuate, it could by no means justify 
the act. The designs of tlxe President were ad- 
ditionally advanced, as he thought, by permitting 
tSie people^ in the momentary absence of thought 
and prevalence of feeling, to depose the govern- 
ment, and, in relation to our foreign affairs, per- 
form its functions-t This degradation was per- 
mitted in the belief, which was not ill-founded, 
that the high indignation which had been raised, 
and which was artificially kept up by the execu- 
tive, would inevitably settle down into deadly 
and nnmoveable enmity. Here was the point 
upon which our Archimedes intended to rest the 
lever, wherewith, if he could not raise the world, 
he hoped to be enabled, in conjunction with Na- 
poleon, to destroy England, by a durable, and, 
with him, wall understood, if not concerted at- 
tack on her commercial prosperity. Instead, 
therefore, of promptly seeking amicable repara- 
tion in a spirit of amity, we find nothing but 
delay, and known inadmissible claims puq^osely 
and inseparably connected with those of axlmissi- 



I The people of Norfolk and Hampton cut oiF, by inflamuia- 
tory resolutions, all communication of the squadron even witV 
British accredited agents, a.nd also refused it water. 



20 

ble reparation; ifi order that reparation might not 
lie obtained. As to delay, two weeks elapsed be- 
fore Mr. Jefferson thought fit to transmit to our 
minister in London information of the occurrence : 
he then did so in the despatch of July 6. Mean- 
time, coolly watching the onward course of pas- 
sion and powerfully accelerating it, he issued his 
unneutral proclamation, prohibiiing our w^aters 
not only to the ships which had committed the 
offence, but also to the whole of his majesty's 
navy. I know not whether the proclamation had 
been duly considered by the President; if it had, 
he knew^ that, however masked under the plea of 
precaution., it was a mean of reparation for the 
offence upon which it had been issued, and but 
for which it had not been issued; a mean of re- 
paration, impairing the right of a full claim, and 
presenting, in the way of satisfying it, insur- 
mountable obstacles; and if it had' not been so 
considered, no one can mistake the conclusions 
which should be drawn from such negligence in 
a case of such importance. Having issued his 
proclamation and waited two weeks, agreeably 
observing the to-rents and tempests with which 
we were inundated and overwhelmed, he sent to 
Mr. Monroe his claim for reparation. And here 
I must remark, that there is something in daily 
transactions which must convince us, if we do 
but duly note them, not only of the existence of 



an overrulini^ Providence, but also of a supreme- 
ly just and onmipottiit God. The delay of the 
President in forwarding his desjmtch, was, in a 
great measure, the means of exposing the impro- 
per object of it. Both Mr. Canning and Mr. Mon- 
roe liad heard of the rencounter before tlie arrival 
in London of the instructions of the' Executive. 
Without loss of time, Mr. Canning conveyed to 
Mr. Monroet his regrets— disavowed, on thy be- 
half of his majesty, the attack of the Leojiard — 
tendered, if the facts turned out to be sucli as 
were stated, spontaneous satisfitfctibn, but pro- 
-tested (how pr^ophetic !) against associating^ :\vith 
the question of reparation any of the ordinary' to- 
pics upon which the two governments were nego- 
tiating, and which, from ths reported nature of 
the olFence, could have lio natural connexion 
with it To this Mr. Monroe replied, that h;> had 
received no instructions from his goveriiment on 
the rumoured and lamented occurrence,; but 
agreed with Mr. Canning, that it would be impro- 
-per to mingle the other topics with the present 
more serious cause of complLiint.4r. ..,;.. 

Of this'interchange of frieiidly and congenial 
opinion between Mr. Canning and Mr. Monroe, 

.■■-/J u '. 
f See Mr. Canning's letter of July 25, ICOZ. 

' t See Mr. Monroe's letter of Julv 2'9, 1807. 



22 

Mr. Monroe transmitted information to our Ex- 
ecutive, in his letter of August 4, at which time 
he had not received the President's despatch of 
July 6. In that letter, still awaiting and in some 
respect anticipating his instructions, he says : 
j*' On the 29th July I wrote Mr. Canning the note 
which I had promised him in the late interview : 
I addressed it in terms which I thought suitable to 
the occasion. I considered the act as that of the 
British officer, in which the governme?it had 7io 
agejicy.''* 

This opinion, founded on the law and usages 
of nations, and corroborated by the previous and 
voluntary assurances of Mr. Canning, as to the 
particular case, was in accordance with our ewn 
practice, as well as with the practice of all civilized 
nations. When the Spanish officers at New-Or- 
leans abruptly prohibited, in direct repugnance 
to the plain letter of our treaty with Spain, our 
right of deposit ; and when, moreover, in conse- 
quence of an insolence of manner, it was made 
in the Senate of the United States the ground of 
a motion for war against Spain, it was contend- 
ed, and so decided by the friends of the admini- 
stration, that although the act w^as a violent en- 
croachment on our rights, and a direct and pro- 
yoking insult offered to our honor, which if done 
by his Catholic majesty would not only justify 
war but render it indispensable, yet that it was 



23 

to be talcen, until otherwise ascertained, as the 
unauthorised act of his oflficers ; that the law of 
nations in reference to it pointed out the legiti- 
mate rule, which was in the first instance to call on 
the Spanish king to disavow the violence, and that 
if, being so called on, he did so, and would ren- 
der due atonement, this was all we could require, 
or that the law and usages of nations authorized.! 
Such was our conduct in that case ; a case in 
whiclv — except that we had done no unfriendly 
act towards Spain — was analogous in principle to 
Ihe case of the Chesapeake : but it was believed 
that Spain was somehow backed by the Ruler of 
the Imperial Republic. No intermediate procla- 
mation, therefore, was issued, either in the way 
of precaution or of revenge. As peace was in 
this case desired, disavowal and atonement were 
sought for in the spirit of peace. 

We have then seen, 1st. That Mr. Camiing 
spontaneously disavowed the assault on the Che- 
sapeake, and expressed the readiness of his ma- 
jesty to render adequate and honorable atone- 
ment for the offence. 2d. That Mr. Monroe was 
of opinion, which was authorised by his own 
^.knowledge, as well as by the assurances of Mr. 
Canning on the behalf of the king, that the attack 



t See Mr. De Witt Cliuton's speech jti the Senate, ct secj 



24 

of the Leopard Avas unauthorised by his majesty. 
3d. ThiLt in estimating the nature of the ofience 
and the repiiiratioa due,; Mr. Canning hud sug- 
gested the propriety of not connecting it v/iih 
distinct subjects, which might embarrass discus- 
sion and prevent adjustment ; and, 4th. 1 ha,t Mr. 
Monroe agreed with him, that it would be "im- 
proper to mhigle other topics, then upon the tapis 
between the two nation?, with the present more 
serious cause of comphiint." All this happened 
before Mr. Monroe received Mr. Jefferson's in. 
structions on the subject of the Chesapeake. 

But here, as in the case of assuring the British 
commissioners that Mr. Jefferson would duly re- 
sist the Berlin decree, our intelligent and upright 
miiiiater had mistaken the designs of the Presi- 
dent. On receiving his instructions, he found, 
contrary to his honest expectations, and no doubt 
to his surprise, that reparation was not desired, 
and that therefore, in deiiiandiug atonement, Mr. 
Jefferson had taken care to connect with it, in- 
separaljly, another claim, distinct in nature, to 
which he knew Great Britain could net^yield, 
without surrendering principles which preserve 
her national independence, support her govern- 
ment, and which, moreover, are the elements of 
our own laws, on the same subject.f Promptly 

t See the case of Williams, contaiirjcl in Mr. Cheetham's 
Lift* of Paine; p. 200. 



25 

therefore as Great Britain had disavowed tli© 
oiFeiice, and anxiously as she had manifested her 
readiness to atone far it, Mr. Jefferson had design- 
edly put it out of her power to do so, by instructing 
his minister not to accept reparation, unless ac- 
companied with a concession on another subject, 
no way connected with it, which he was avvare 
England would not make. " The nature and 
extent of the satisfaction, Mr. Madison says in his 
instructions to Mr. Monroe,* ougiit to be suggest- 
ed to the British government, no less by a sense 
of its own honour, than by justice to that of the 
United States. A formal disavowal of ihe deed, 
and restoration of the four seamen to the ^hip 
from which they were taken, are things of course 
and indispensable. As a security for the future, 
an entire abolition of impressments from vessels 
under the flag of the United States, is also to 
make an indispensable part of the satisfaction.'* 
The deed had already been disavowed by Mr. 
Canning to Mr. Monroe, and as to formality^ as 
well as every circumstance of just and honourable 
atonement, his majesty had tendered them in ad- 
vance. But formal reparation was also to be ac- 
companied, or not received, by an " entire aboli- 
tion of impressments," which was to make an 
*' indispensable'" part of the satisfaction ! And this 



* See the instructions of July 6, 1807. 

4 



26 

too was to be ofTensively extorted from an inde- 
pendent, high-minded, and powerful nation ! To 
animadvert on the ignorance and folly which 
thus affrontingly claimed the concession, would 
be to impute to the head what plainly belongs to 
the heart. Mr. Jefferson was convinced, and 
upon the conviction he made the claim, that the 
British government would not, in this exception- 
able manner, yield that which, under a more 
specious and acceptable form, she had uniformly 
and sternly refused. And hence he was sure, 
when he sent his instructions to Mr. Monroe, that 
by associating with a reasonable claim for repa- 
ration the inadmissible demand of an entire abo- 
lition of impressments, reparation could not be 
obtained, and, therefore, that the mind of Ame- 
rica might be kept in the high and hostile state 
in which it w^as, and of which he might artfully 
avail himself, to further the commercial project 
of Napoleon and himself. 

Unfortunately for us, he succeeded in his de- 
sign. Unequivocal disavowal of the act and full 
atonement for the offence, taking out of the way 
the objectionable proclamation, and thereby plac- 
ing us as we stood when the encounter happened, 
were ready for us, but as Mr. Monroe was forbid- 
den to accept them without an entire abolition of 
impressments, reparation was not made, public 
irritation and enmity were increased, and thug by 



27 

straiwgem, and under false and foul pretences, 
the nation has been duped into a complete but im- 
potent co-opertition in the war against commerce, 
which the conqueror of the European continent 
had waged against the rest of the civilized world. 

" The difficulties in the way of adjustment, 
says Mr. Canning, are already smoothed, by the 
disavowal, voluntarily offered, at the very outset 
of the discussion, of the general and unquahfied 
pretension to search ships of war for deserters. 
There remained only to ascertain the facts of the 
particular case, and to proportion the reparation 
to the wrong. 

*' Is the British government now to understand, 
that you, Sir, are not authorised to enter into this 
question separately and distinctly ; without hav- 
ing obtained as a preliminary," the concession 
which you have demanded ? 

" Whether the consent of Great-Britain to the 
entering into such discussion shall be extorted as 
the price of an amicable adjustment, as the con- 
dition of being admitted to make honourable re- 
paration for an injury, is a question of quite a 
different sort, and one which can be answered no 
otherwise than by an un([ualified refusal. 

" I earnestly recommend to you, therefore, to 
consider, whether the instructions which you 
have received from your government, may not 
leave you at liberty to come to an adjustment of 



28 

the case of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, in- 
dependen!ly of the other question, with which it 
appears to have been unnecessarily connected. 

*' In that case, his majesty in pursuance of the 
disposition of which he has given such signal 
proofs, will lose no time in sending a minister to 
America, furnished with the necessary instruc- 
tions and powers for bringing this unfortunate 
dispute to a concIusion."t 

Mr. Monroe having stated, in his reply of the 
29th of the same month, that he had no power to 
separate the tw^o questions, and that he was ab- 
solutely forbidden to accept reparation for the 
Chesapeake, unless accompanied with a conces- 
sion on the other and distinct subject, the nego- 
tiation was terminated, and Mr. Rose despatched 
to Washington. 

Thus the President triumphed and the nation 
suffered. Reparation not being desired, Great 
Britain was not permitted to make it. 

It now became necessary to anticipate the arri- 
val of Mr. Rose, who by forcing upon Mr. Jeffer. 
son a reparation which he could not refuse, might 
prevent the adoption, by Congress, of that anti- 
commercial system on which he was resolved. 



I Mr. Canning's letter of September 23, 1807, in reply t« 
Mr. Monroe's first letter, aftcx' he had received his instructions 
from the President. 



29 

With this view, the s<ige of Monticello recom- 
mended the embargo, which was obediently laid 
by Congress, before the arrival of Mr. Rose * 

The pretext held forth by the President for th© 
measure, was that of keeping in safety " our ves- 
sels, seamen and merchandise," which, he added, 
are '* threatened on the high seas." The artiiice 
was perhaps as plausible as machination could 
engender. 

But by what or by whom were w^e thus threat- 
ened ? Not by the Berlin decree, as considered by 
Mr. Jefferson, for that, when the embargo was laid, 
was more than a year old ; and so far from hav- 
ing viewed it as sullying our honour and vio- 
lating our rights, he had grossly insulted the Bri- 
tish government, for suggesting the obhgation 
which we were under not to submit to it. Nei- 
ther by France, therefore, nor by the Berlin de- 
cree, in the estimation of Mr. Jefferson, were 
" threatened, our vessels, seamen, and merchan- 
dise." And as to the paltry defence which the 
administration has set up about the condemna- 
tion of the Horizon, that, to the great wrongs 



* The President's message recommending the embargo, is 
dated December 18, 1807. The law was passed in a lew 
hours by the Senate ! In the House of Rt.present.atives, where 
a noble stand was made against it, it was detained three days. 
On the 2'?.d December, 1807, it became a law. Mr. Rose ar- 
rived at Norfolk, December 26, 1807. 



30 

which we have suffered, is but adding a greater 
insult. The Berlin decree was passed against us, 
and it was therefore our duty to oppose it, the 
moment we were officially apprized of the extra- 
ordinary measure. We ought to have been sure, 
as was the fact, that Bonaparte would carry it 
into effect with all the promptness and energy of 
which his navy was capable. The answer of 
Decres, to the trifling application of General Arm- 
strong, was but a sarcasm on the general, who 
being a man of the world, was satisfied v/ith it. 
If the Horizon was the first seizure, it was be- 
cause no other prey had fallen within the pent up 
range of the imperial freebooters. 

Yet though in the opim'o/i of the President, not- 
withstanding the Berlin decree, we had nothing 
to apprehend from France (and surely in his 
opinion we had not, the decree being a measure 
after his own heart) we had nevertheless luckily 
heard, as it was said, but did not officially know, 
that England intc7ided to resort to measures, 
something like, it was thought, the Orders in 

Council. 

Admitting that we w^ere so favoured by for- 
tune, and congratulating ourselves upon it, the 
first thing that strikes us is the difference of our 
conduct in the two cases. In that of England, we 
anticipate the Orders in Council, and thus oppose 
them — by our coercive embargo. In that of 



31 

France, there is neither anticipation nor embargo. 
Pleased, we smile upon the Berlin decree for 
thirteen months, but take no other notice of it ! 

In proof that the uncommon sources of inform- 
ation, and extraordinary vigilance of rie Presi- 
dent enabled him fortunately to discover, that 
England intended to pass the Orders in Council, 
a scrap of printed paper, which the Philosopher 
had cut out of a Gazette, and transmitted to 
Congress with his embargo message, has been se- 
rioMsly and sagely adduced. 

I have often snickered, (God forgive me !) when 
reading the learned and eloquent debates in Con- 
gress, and noting the sharp encounters of wit 
which every day take place in that body of rhe- 
toricians, at the many appeals which have been 
made to the files of the National Intelligencer, and 
the references to a London paragraph contained 
somewhere therein, as evidence not only of the in- 
teiition of the British government to resort to mea- 
sures retaliating the Berlin decide, but also of tlve 
nosing acumen of the President in discovering 
the fact, and his fatherly care and rare sagacity in 
so readily recommending a remedy for the mis- 
chief. And perceiving how the one side has 
triumphed and the other been overthrown by 
these confident appeals, what hope, I have said to 
myself, can be entertained of the nation, when 
Congress, the most enlightened body in the ivorld. 



32 

is thus made the dupe and the victim of Executive 
mariiigcment ? But as the subject is of a nature 
too grave for light observations, I must beg the 
attention of the reader to more serious matter. 

When Mr. Jefferson, as I have aheady re- 
mari^ed, tran-mitted to Congress his embargo 
message, he thought fit to accompany it \^itll a 
London paragraph, which he had carefully cut 
out of one of our newspapers. Upon this para- 
graph, which intimated the resolution of the 
British cabinet to retort upon the enemy the 
Berlin decree, and w hich was a principal in the 
documents accompan3^ing the message, he ma- 
terially grounded his observation, " that the 
communications now made showed the increasing 
dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and 
merchandise were threatened upon the high 
seas."* Hence Congress took it for granted, that 
the President had no information of th(^ intended 
orders in council but that which he had derived 
from the paragraph, and from similar sources; and 
hence also it is (having carried his wishes into 
effect) that in all the subsequent debates regard- 
ing that calamitous measure, the majority has 
uniformly and triumphantly referred to the files 
of the National Intelligencer, into which the pa- 
ragraph had been copied, as evidence of the Pre- 

* See the Message. 



3S 

sident's knowledge of the intention of the British 
cabinet, of the unmeasurable depth of his pene- 
tration, his admirable foresight, and his unerring 
judgment. It was upon this paragraph that he 
asserted in his message the " increasing danger." 
Now it is a fact (and the imposture must be 
exposed) that when Mr. Jefferson communicated 
the newspaper paragraph to Congress as the orily 
information he possessed re pecfcing the decision 
of the British cabinet to retort the BorUn decree, 
he had in his desk, or on file in the department of 
state, where it had been many months^ an official 
notification from the British government, of its 
determination to retaliate the decree, and ihat 
retaliation had been postponed solely at the anx- 
ious request of our ministers, Messrs. Monroe and 
Pinkney, and on their assurances that we w^ould 
not submit to it. The notification was made by 
the British government to our ministers in De- 
cember, 1806; the assurances of our ministers, 
that we would not si/bmit^ were given to the Bri- 
tish government in the same month., and both 
were communicated to the President by Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinkney, in their letter of January 
3, 1 807, which accompanied the rejected treaty.* 
Asi therefore, the embargo message was not cora^ 



* See tUe President's message of Mar(iU22, 180H 

i 



34 

municated to Congress until December 1 8, 1 807, 
it follows, that notwithstanding the artifice of a 
newspaper communication to Congress, the Pre- 
sident had in his possession, and had long had in 
his possession, official information of the deter- 
mination of the British cabinet to counteract the 
decree ; and moreover, that that determination 
had been waved solely on the representations 
and assurances of our ministers that we would 
not submit to it. In addition to the verbal noti- 
fication of the British cabinet to Messrs. Monroe 
and Pinkney, made early in December, 1806, 
the President had also in his possession, when he 
communicated to Congress his embargo message 
and paragraph accompaniment, the written note 
of Lords Holland and Auckland, dated Decem- 
ber 31, 1806; upon which he had grounded the 
rejection of the treaty of the same date. Here 
then is nefarious deception practised upon the 
nation in gross, as well as on Congress. The re- 
jected treaty of December 31, 1806, the annexed 
note of Lords Holland and Auckland, of the same 
date, together with the letter of Messrs. Monroe 
and Pinkney, of January 3, 1807, were not com- - 
municated to Congress until March 22, 1808;* 
tl^ee months after the passing of the embargo 
Ihw, and when all those essentiur documents had 

* Sfee the President's message of that date. 



35 

been in tire poseession of Mr, JefTerson viore than 
a year ! After the embargo was laid, and when, 
therefore, the President had accomplished his 
anti-commerciul purpose, he thought it not iinsafe 
to communicate to Congress those important pa* 
pers, which have enabled me to expose the impo- 
sitions which he practised upon that body ; im- 
positions which have hitherto escaped detection. 
Whether Congress would ar would not have 
passed the embargo law with the documents be- 
fore them, is now matter only for conjecture ; but 
the studied concealment of them by Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and the fraud of communicating in their 
stead a paragraph cut out of a newspaper, indi- 
cate to us his opinion and his fear that they 
would not. 

In addition to the apprehensions entertained by 
the President from the anticipated arrival of Mr. 
Rose, and the possible tender of a reparation in 
the case of the Chesapeake, which could not be 
irefused without risking executive popularity^ 
a circumstance happened which quickened the 
determination of Mr. Jefferson to recommend the 
embargo. The Revenge, which had been des- 
patched to France, arrived at Nevv-York on the 
1 2th of December, 1807, >vith Dr. Bullus, the 
messenger. This gentleman immediately posted 
to Washington, where he arrived on the 16fh, 
and on the 1 8th, the embargo message was com- 



3d 

municated to Congress. On the arrival of the 
Revenge at New- York, the officers (includmg, I 
behcve, Dr. Bullas) reported, what was univer- 
sally credited in France, that Bonaparte had de- 
clared, thut in the commercial war which he had 
commenced at Berlin against England, there 
should be " no neutrals !" That the same inso- 
lent declaration was commmiicated to the Presi- 
dent in the French official despatches brought by 
the Revenge, may fairly be presumed, as well 
from all the circumstances of the case, as from the 
nature of the mutilated extracts which, on one or 
t\^ occasions, Mr Jefferson compulsively trans- 
mitted to Congress. Of this, however, we are 
sure ; that no information had been received from, 
England, in addition to that which was commu- 
nicated to Mr. Jefferson by Mr. Monroe in his let- 
ter of January 3, 1 807, accompanying the re-; 
jected treaty. What then could have induced 
the immediate recommendation of the embargo, 
if French suggestion, I will not say dictation, co- 
operating with a more than willing mind, did 
not? Undoubtedly the embargo was exactly 
the measure which Bonaparte desired. He had 
already, to the extent of his power, excluded the 
commerce of England from Europe. The very 
object of the Berlin decree was to deter us, by 
menaces of capture, from trading with England^ 



37 

if Bonaparte could succeed in this, his system of 
commercial hostiUty against his antagonist was 
complete. And what was requisite but an Ame- 
rican embargo ? What could have been more 
grateful to him ? The Berlin decree, without, as 
France was, the means of a rigorous enforcement 
of it, would, in the absence of the embargo, have 
been materially impotent. Our embargo, there- 
fore, operating in the spirit, and coming power- 
fully in aid of the decree, supplied him at once 
with all the means of a fleet greater and more * 

efficient than that of England, and was, of course, 
precisely the measure to which he would have 
resorted at Berlin, had he, in fonn^ been master of 
the United States. It was therefore with reason, 
having ourselves ?io hiterest in the dedruetion of 
commerce^ knowing the ardent attachment of 
Mr. Jefferson to France, and observing his mys- 
terious and hostile conduct towards England, 
that strong suspicions of French influence were 
directly asserted in Congress ; not indeed in the 
Senate, where the embargo bill became a law 
in three hours y where Mr. Giles, a man as des- 
titute of talents as of morals, and yet in the 
secrets of the cabinet, led that house ; but in the 
House oi Representatives, where it met with the 
most determined opposition. In this branch of 
the national legislature, whose doors had been 



35 

shut by management,* an animated debate arose. 
On the ministerial side of the house, the embaraco 
was advocated as a measure against England. 
Mr. Wilson Gary Nicholas, who was considered 
as the President's prime minister, vauntingly as- 
serted on the floor, that it would bring Jbigkmd 
to our feet in a few months ! The Berlin decree 
was not mentioned ; nor was any more allusion 
made to France by the creatures of the Presi- 
dent, than if France had no existence. Thus 
circumstanced, Mr. Randolph, in one of the most 
impressive speeches ever delivered by that gen- 
tleman, deprecated the measure as one which, if 
not of imperial dictation, which he suspectedj- 
would be ruinous to the country. Mr. Masters bold- 
ly declared, that the " hand of Napoleon was in 
this thing." The honorable De Witt Clinton, 
Mayor of the city of New- York, who although 
not a member, was well informed on the subject, 
and had attentively observed events, publicly as- 
serted, that " Bonaparte had menaced our govern- 
ment, and made some infam-ous propositions to 
it." The intention of the majority of the house 
was to pass the bill from the Senate at the first 
sitting. Time for reflection was denied. They 
seemed to fear lest a single adjournment should 

* The Journal only of the proceedings of tlie Hoasehas b^n 
published, but the speeches are nevertheless well known. 



a9 

lead to a discovery of the secret. French des- 
patches* were called for in vain. Every motion 
of that nature was silently and inexorably nega- 
tived by the President's majority. In despite of 
every effort of patriotism, genius, and eloquence, 
the fatal measure was finally carried. 

By France, as well as by every unprejudiced 
and intelligent man in the United States, our em- 
bargo was considered as directed solely against 
England, and as a material part of the anti-com- 
mercial system of his Imperial Majesty. The 
Moniteur, the official paper of Napoleon, was 
rich in its encomiums upon it. The United States 



* Our diplomatic correspondence with the British govern- 
ment is regularly filed in the department of state, and, wheu 
not called for, was always copied in full by an ordinary clerk, 
and communicated to Congress from the department by iVIr. 
Jefferson, if judged by him calculated either to cherish the 
prejudices or to increase the passions of the licQple against 
England. French despatches were, however, differently ma- 
naged. Instead of being filed in the department of state, as is 
the invariable rule with all other despatches, they were care- 
fully locked up in the pi'ivate desk of Mr. Jefferson; and v/hen, 
as in one or two instances, he was obliged to communicate a 
portion of them, he copied, ///w.sf//', such extracts-ashe thought 
fit, and communicated them to Congress in his o^vii hand 
writing! No one but himself was pern)itted to see the ori- 
ginals! Charles the II. carried on a similar correspondence 
Tfith Lewis the XIV. 

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, IloratiOv 
Than are drea^Tlt of in your philosophy. 



f 






.1 



40 

were applauded to the very echo., which applauds 
again. Our patriotism and firmness were as 
highly spoken of, as were those of Holland and 
Switzerland, while in a state of preparation for 
national death, and just before the imperial le- 
gions were let loose upon them, to " ccnquer 
liberty." 

The President had now time to meet Mr. Rose, 
the British ambassador, to Usten to his proposi- 
tions, and, with calmness, having achieved his 
great purpose, to decide upon them. 

In this mission, flattering our pride and court- 
ing our friendshi]), there was much, on the part of 
Great Britain, of courtesy, but possibly nothing 
of humiliation. 

-: Mr. Rose was charged to make reparation for 
the provoked, yet unjustifiable attack on the Che- 
sapeake. Had reparation been denied to Mr. 
Monroe, and consequently withheld from the 
United States, the original offence would ^have 
been greatly heightened. But the principle of 
searching armed ships for deserters, as well as the 
conduct of Admiral Berkely in the particular 
case, had been spontaneously and frankly disa- 
vowed, and atonement, in the spirit of atone- 
ment, voluntarily offered. Why was it not ac- 
cepted ? Because Mr. Monroe was forbidden to re- 
ceive reparation, unless accompanied w^ith a most 
humiliating concession on another and different 



♦ 4 

i 



subject. As therefore the President had refused 
to receive reparation but upon a condition which 
would have degraded Great Britain, and which 
was of course rejected, Engh^nd might ju-rl/ 
have waited with content and dignity, until the 
President had notified his resolution to separate 
the distinct subjects which he had unnaturally 
and' unworthily connected, and to accept the re- 
paration which had been voluntarily proposed. 
But she chose a more conciliiuing if not a more 
digtiiiied course. She did us the honour of send- 
ing Mr. Rose to offer in the Capirol of America 
atonement which had been refused in the Capitol 
of England. 

The mission being opened, Mr. Rose assured 
Mr. Madison that he was charged by his majesty 
to make to the President such a reparation for 
the attack on the Chesapeake as should be agreea- 
ble, but that it was expressly enjoined upon him 
previou?;]y vo require a separation of that quvStlon 
from the one wiih which it had been connected, 
and also a recall of the proclamation of the Pre- 
sident, thereby withdrawing a menace, and leav- 
ing the parties as they stood when the oftence 
was comriiitt-ed. 

The fin-t requisition vvas complied with, in a 
letter wriiten by Mr. Madison witli much abil-iy 
and with all those colours and sounds vvhicii de- 
light the eye and the ear of the people. It w as 

6 



> 



42 

agreed that the two subjects, which ought never 
to have been joined, should be separated. Thus 
a main obstacle to an acceptance of reparation at 
London in September, was withdrawn at Wash- 
ington in the following March — ivhen the embargo 
nvas laid ! 

But as the spirit of the nation, improperly ke|>£ 
up, was still to be preserved, /// order that the 
embargo ?jijght he tnai ntained ^ the other requisition, 
for revoking the proclamation, was not complied 
with. Reparation, therefore, was not tendered ; 
Mr. Rose insisting that the proclamation was 
viewed by his majesty as a threat^ and that being 
issued upon the commission of the offence, with- 
out first calling upon the king, according to the 
law and usages of nations, to disavow it, it was 
an act of self-reparation, and precluded his majes- 
ty, while unrecalled, from making the necessary 
concessions to the United States. He assured 
Mr. Madison that he was instructed to make no 
atonement, but upon condition of a previous re- 
scinding of the proclamation. Mr. Madison as- 
sumed, on the other hand, that the proclamation 
was an act of precaution^ not of revenge, but 
being apprized by Mr. Rose that he had no power 
to make reparation without a previous revoca- 
tion, Mr. Madison proposed, what he knew Mr. 
, Rose could not comply with, that the recall of the 
proclamation and the tender of satisfaction, 



43 

should be slmultaneaiis acts. Here the negotia- 
tion terminattd, Mr. Rose liaving no power to 
adjust the business upon that condition, and the 
President not deeming it expedient to go be- 
yond it. 

But the pi-oposition of Mr. Madison demon- 
strates the futihty of his argument, as well as the 
nature and intention of the proclamation. The 
President was willing to abandon the precaution 
on receiving atonement. What follows ? Clear- 
ly that the proclamation was nothing but a me- 
nace, for upon receiving reparation the precau- 
tion w'as to cease. Now if it were a precaution 
it could not be relinquished, and yet upon re- 
ceiving atonement relinquishment was proposed ! 
No doubt the President saw this conclusion, but 
he had no wish for a final settlement of the affair. 
The efficacy of the embargo, aiding the Berlin 
decree, was to be tried upon the only nation in 
Ui3 w^orld which is capable of staying the strides 
of Bonaparte to universal empire. It never oc- 
curred to us, that if England sunk beneath the 
vast and accumulating pressure, there would be 
no nation to stand between us and the great ruin 
which Napoleon meditates, and would effect, but 
for the power whose generous advances we had 
unjustly rebuked, whose means of revenue we 
had assailed, and w^hose energies we had endea- 
voured to paralize. 



44 

And now Mr. Jefferson began to mature the 
arrangements which he hud commenced with 
Alexander of Russia, one of the coadjutors, if not 
fiefs of the Emperor of France. Soon after the 
affidr of the Chesapeake, when the President had 
resolved neither to accept rt-parution, nor to op- 
pose the Berlin decree, he despatched Mr. Short* 
to Fetersburgh, upon a private and confidential 
mission. In July, I'-OS,! he received, through 
Mr. Short, a letter from the Emperor of Russia, 
written with his own hand. The gentleman who 
ha; enabled me to state this fact, was not made 
acquainted, by the President, with the contents of 



* Mr. Short, who is a native of the United States, was pri- 
vate Secretary to Mr. Jefferson when minister at Paris. He 
has resided twenty-nine years in France, and become a 
Tf'renchman in manners and opinion. On the last day of liis 
administration, Mr. Jefferson nominated Mr. Short to the Se- 
nate, a.s77nnister of the Uratcd State-o to the court oj" Russia;* 
no doubt as a compensation for the co7iJiden(ial services he 
had rendered at that court, but the Senate, contrary to the 
expectations of Mr. Jefferson, wnawnnozts/t/ negatived the nom- 
ination. W'lietlier the Senate was acquainted with the nature 
of Short's previous and private mission or not, I do not know- 
John Q. Adams was immediately after appointed minister to 
Russia. 

I Three months after the termination of Mr. Rose's mission. 



45 

the letter ; yet we cannot, ine hinks, if we attend 
to circumstances, either mistake the nature of the 
mission or misconjecture the substance of the epis- 
tle. Mr. Short was without delay again enabled 
privately to act in Europe. About the 20th of 
October, the two Emperors of Russia and France 
held their celebrated conference at Erfurth. At 
this conference (at which I have not ascertained 
that Mr. Short was present in person) the invasion 
and conquest of Spain v.'ere agreed upon, and the 
Berlin system of commercial hostility strengthen- 
ed and confirmed. From Erfurth Bonaparte rode 
post haste to Paris, instantly convened his legis- 
lature, and on the 2Tth of the same month, (Oc- 
tober, 1808) addressed them in the following 
words. 

" Russia and Denmark have joined me against 

England. 

'' The United States of America have preferred 
to renounce commerce and the sea, rather than to 
acknowledge the slavery of them. 

*' I set off in a few days in order to put myself 
at the head of my army, and with the help of 
God, to crown the King of Spain at Madrid, and 
plant my eagles upon the forts of Lisbon." 

The lieid of conjecture, however ])robable and 
ingenious conjecture might be, is too vast to per- 
mit me to enter into it : I will not, therefore, 



46 

either trouble the reader or myself with suppos- 
ing, what 13 very probable, that there was at least 
a commercial understanding at Erfurth between 
the two Emperors and the President of the United 
States. The mission of Short to Russia, unknown 
to and unsanctioned by the Senate, as w^ll as the 
receipt of Alexander's letter by Mr. Jefferson, is 
certain. But whether the Emperor's epistle an- 
nounced the intended conference, and invited, in 
execution of the objects of it, our aid, are matters, 
from the nature of them, of conjecture only, and 
as such I leave them to the heart and under- 
standing of the reader; with the assurance, how- 
ever, of my own conviction, that the opinions and 
determinations of Mr. Jefferson, with regard to 
the non commercial system, were as fully repre- 
sented at the Erfurth conference, as if Short had 
been sent to it for the purpose, with the knowledge 
and approbation of the Senate. The speech of 
Bonaparte, which is a thing of notoriety, was de- 
livered in Paris seven days after the breaking up 
of the conference. In this, having stated that 
Russia and Denmark had agreed to join him 
against England, he immediately, without the in- 
tervention of a word, (and the order of the impe- 
rial speech should be noted) asserts, in terms of 
decided approbation, and in the most positive 
tone, that the " United States have renounced 



4/ 

commerce and the sea."* How came he thus to 
connect the United States with Russia and Den- 
mark, who at the conference from \^hich he had 
just returned, had agreed to join him ? Had we 
also agreed to renounce commerce and the seas ? 
J3ut conjecture aside. Napoleon's language is ia 
unison with that of the Moniteur, and both cannot 
fail to convince us, that the embargo, if not in 
some measure dictated by, was very agreeable to 
the tyrant, who having banished, to the extent 
of his means, commerce from the continent of 
Europe, was now endeavouring to effect its de- 
struction all over the world. 

About the same time (murmurs of discontent 
being distinctly heard) Mr. Jefferson commenced 
a delusive negotiation with England, the pretend- 
ed object of which was to exchange the embargo 
laws for the orders in council. 

Vastly overrating the cogency of tlie embargo 
system, and taking it for granted that England, 
sinking, as it was ignorantly believed and wick- 
edly hoped, under the joint hostility of Europe 

* At the same time Mr. JefTerson said in America, in an- 
swer to the address of the Legislature of New-Hampshire, (us 
I have before observed) that it would be '* unwise ever more 
to recur to distant countries for comforts and conveniences,-' 
This, as Bonaparte remarked in his speech, was nnclixibtedlv 
renoitucing commerce and the sea. 



48 

and America, would seize with avidity on any 
proposition that held out a propect of tempo- 
rary relief, and relinquish, for a shadow, her 
substantial orders in council ; Mr. Jefferson in- 
structed Mr. Madison to direct Mr. Pinkney 
to say : " Should the British government take 
this course (repeal her orders in council) you 
may authorize an expectation that the President 
will, within a reasonable time, give effect to the 
authority vested in him on the subject of the em- 
bargo laws." On the 23d of August, 1808, Mr. 
Pinkney, in the honest spirit and clear phraseo- 
logy of his instructions, made the overture to the 
British government. He told Mr. Canning that 
it was the intention of the President to suspend 
the embargo as to Great Britain, in case she re- 
pealed her orders in council.* 

If, either in the spirit or in the terms of the over- 
ture, we could perceive on the part of Mr. Jeffer- 
son any thing of sincerity or plain dealing, the 
overture itself would be a direct, clear, and just 
condenmation of his own conduct. On the inad- 
missible supposition, that honesty and fairness were 
meant, the overture is to be understood as propos- 
ing a mutual repeal of the embaigo laws and the 
orders in council ; yet as enforcing, at the same 
time, the embargo against France, by way of re- 
sisting the Berlin decree. On this supposition, 

* See Mr. Pinknev's letter of August 23, ISOS. 



49 

Mr. Jefferson proposes to England, in August^ 
1 808, what England proposed to us in December, 
1806, in the note accompanying the rejected 
treaty ; namely, that if we would not suhmit to 
the Berlin decree, she would not opiX)se to it re- 
taliating measures. He now offers to enforce the 
embargo against France, and thus to resist her 
decree ! After, therefore, suffering the embargo 
nearly a year, and maintaining an unfriendly, 
irritating, and unproiitable contest a much longer 
time, he acknowledges his error, and promises to 
tread back his steps ! In this case, in which sin- 
cerity and uprightness are taken for granted, the 
philosopher admits his unfitness for the station 
which he filled. 

But while we acknowledge the fact of his un- 
fitness, we are constrained to award him the other 
alternative. In the overture there was no since- 
rity; no plain dealing: negotiation was not in- 
tended ; amity was not desired ; commerce was 
ntit to be resumed : the force of the Berlin decree, 
aided by the embargo, was yet to be tried upon 
England. 

This inevitable conclusion is drawn, keeping in 
view ail the concomitant circumstances, from the 
diction of the overture. " You may authorize an 
expectation that the President will, within a rea- 
•ionabh time^ give effect to the authority vest^td in. 

/ 



/ 



50 

him on the subject of the embargo laws." In this 
phraseology there is a palpable want of sincerity ; 
an utter absence of all honesty of intention, if not 
a studied insult, which freed the i^ritish govern- 
ment from the obligations of a reply. You may 
authorize an expectation I Upon the indefinite 
promise of a vague expectation, England was 
asked positively to recall her orders in council ! 
Did Mr. Jefferson think her so silly ? Had he 
really imagined her so hard pressed ? And what 
was the expectation which was thus remotely en- 
couraged ? Why, forsooth, that Mr. Jefferson 
would, within a reasonable fifnc, exert a vested 
power ! There is a language, as well as conduct, 
which can be noticed only with contempt. Of 
this Mr. Canning seems to have been aware, when, 
in his reply* to the overture of an expectation, he 
twitteringly said : " His majesty would not hesi- 
tate to contribute, in any manner in his power, to 
restore to the commerce of the United States, its 
wonted activity ; and if it were possible to make 
any sacrifice for the repeal of the embargo, with- 
out appearing to deprecate it as a measure of hos- 
tility, he would gladly have facilitated its removal, 
as a measure of inconvenient restriction upon the 
American people.^* 



■" Of Scptembev 23. 180S. 



51 

Meanwhile discontent increased at home, and 
murmurs became every day louder. Eagle-eyed 
Massachusetts perceived the design of the admi- 
nistration to throw US into the arms of France, 
and manifested a determination to resist it. The 
term of Mr. Jefi'erson's administration was draw- 
ing to a close, and the philosopher was preparing 
to slink into retirement. Thwarted abroad and 
despised at home, he devolved on his successor the 
business of the administration, before his succes- 
sor was inducted into office. And as popularity, 
and party, and power, and honors, and emolu- 
ment, were ail threatened, the old scene was 
now to be varied in the exhibition. Having 
advised, we are to presume, the very partial and 
unneutral system of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Aladison 
could neither abandon it without inconsistency, 
nor adhere to it without risking support. In this 
dilemma, the President in fact, though not in 
fonn ; a Mr. Robert Smith, who was to be secre- 
tary of state under the new administration, and 
Mr. Gallatin, secretary of the treasury, who in 
consideration of his superior talents was permit- 
ted to retain his station, all, as if by preconcert, 
made, what I shall hereafter more particularly 
notice, very flattering informal advances to Mr- 
Erskine, who in the management which is to be 
developed, was devoted to destruction by our 
new government. Upon these advances, w'hich 



52 

-Mr. Erskiiie faithfully and innocently, and ac- 
cording to the v%ishes of Messrs. Ma,dis(jn, Galla- 
tin, and Smith, transmitted to Mr. Canning, the 
non-intercourse bill, designed to give weight to 
Mr. Erskine's representations, was introduced in- 
to Congress and became a law, although, as the 
fact has since turned out, nineteen-twentieths of 
Congress knew nothing of the intentions of the 
original movers of it. On receiving Mr. Erskine's 
representations of the conversations, opinions, 
and wishes of our new government, Mr. Can- 
ning, on the behalf of his majesty, reduced 
them (including an advance similarly made by 
Mr. Pinkney) to three clear and distinct propo- 
sitions (culled instructions) upon which, and 
upon which alone, Mr. Erskiue was authorised 
to adjust the difterences of the two nations, 
respecting the orders and non-intercourse law. 
The propositions of Mr. Canning, dated January, 
23, 1809, were received by Mr. Erskine early in 
the following April; on the I'^th of which month 
was made tiie well known arrangement of that 
gentleman and our great Secretary of State. 

Upon the face of this arrangement, haste, like 
a post-boy, was visible. Every body was sur- 
prised, as well at the unexpected event, as at the 
expedition with which it had evidently been 
brought about. The letters of the two negocia- 
tors followed each other in such rapid succegsion, 



53 

and wore, withal, so admirably adapted to each 
other, that though no one su^ptcted ajuggle on the 
one side, operating upon innocence on the other, 
yet the dullest perceived that the arrangement had 
been verhaily made, and thi' letters, ib rm, sub- 
stance and all, privately agreed upon. And in 
addition to the per.sua^ions which, on the }uirt of 
our administration, had superinduced the ar- 
rangeiueni, and which were essential to the suc- 
cess oJ tiie main plot, I mean an eventual resur- 
rection of deadly passion, and a consequent final 
niivintenance of the commercial restranits, there 
were to be accomplished important collateral ob- 
jects. Several state elections were at hand. Ours, 
(the state of New-York) then in high preparation, 
and threatening a com])lete overthrow ot the Ber- 
lin juirty, w^ere to take ])lace in a few days. 
Nothing could have saved from political destruc- 
tion the advocates of the Berlin system, but the 
letters of Messrs. Erskine and Smith, which were 
instantly printed at Vv^ashington, and with un- 
usual despatcii forwarded to us. '1 hese partially 
turned the scale against the friends of peace and 
commerce. The public meetings, acclamations, 
and boasts, that the embargo had " brought Great 
Britain u])on her marrow bones,'" though they 
gained no victory, pi-evented an entire defeat. 
But for the unauthorised agreement, the state of 
Kew-Yorlr, as a statr, would have raised her 



54 . 

commanding voice against the deep and damna- 
ble designs of our administration. 

As was foreseen by the President, Mr.Erskine's 
arrangement was disavowed by his government 
He was in consequence recalled, and Mr. Jackson 
appointed to succeed him. 

Again the President triumphed : all that he had 
anticipated from his management of Mr. Erskine, 
was realised. The passions of the people were once 
more let loose. The air resounded with shouts 
of perfidy ! The embargo was again called for 
by the Berlin party, until, as was said, prepara- 
tion could be made for avenging war. No one 
imagined that Mr. Erskine had been prevailed 
•with to sign an agreement, which the President 
knew his government must disavow. 

The disavowal was announced to Mr. Pinkney 
by Mr. Canning on the 27th of May, 1809,* five 
weeks after its conclusion at Washington. In 
notifyhig Mr. Pinkney, Mr. Canning distinctly 
assigns the reasons w^hich had induced his ma- 
jesty to decline a ratification of the arrangement. 
" Having, he says to Mr. Pinkney, had the 
honour to read to you in exfcvso rJie instructions 
with which Mr. Erskine was furnished, it is not 
necessary for me to enter into any explanation of 
those points in which Mr. Erskine has acted not 

* President's message, p. 7. 



55 

only not in conformity but in direct contradic- 
tion to them." In the same letter Mr. Canning 
states, that Mr. Jackson would be immediately 
sent to Washington, not however upon a special 
mission, but merely as the successor of Mr. Er- 
skine. 

Two days after, namely, on the 29th of May, 
1809, Mr. Pinkney acknowledged the note of 
Mr. Canning, in which the disavowal, and the 
reasons for it, were announced, as well as t!ie 
fact, that Mr. Canning had previously read to Mr. 
Pinkney in extenso the instructions of Mr. Erskine. 

Attentive to his duty, Mr. Pinkney immediately 
communicated to our Secretary of State the disa- 
vowal, and the cause of it, together with a copy 
of the three propositions* (instructions) which had 
been sent to Mr. Erskine, and upon a com])liance 
with which on our part, he was authorized to ad- 
just the differences ; so that, t'uco months before the 
arrival of Mr. Jackson, the President had oiTiciaily 
received the original instructions of Mr. Erskine, 
as well as information of the disavowal, the 
reasons for the disavowal, and that, as Mr. Jack- 
son was not coming out on a special mission, but 
merely as the successor of Mr. Erskine, nothing 
special was to be expected from him. It will be 

* 

* Mr. Secretary Smith acknov/lodges these facts ; Docu- 
ments; p. 13. 



d6 

necessary for the reader not to lose sight of these 
fact.>, it he has any wish rightly to understand the 
8ubse([uent proceedings of ihe President. 

The arrangement being disavowed, it was 
made a question in parliament, whether Mr. Er- 
skine had really violated, or, more sigiiiMcantly 
speaking, totally disregarded his instructions, for 
the fact being admitted, the disavowal, it was 
and must be conceded, was not only strictly h^gal 
and just, but under existing circumstances indis- 
pensable. In order to ascertain the fact, the in- 
structions were laid before parliament, publislied 
in the London newspa]>ers, propagated from them 
by ours, and thus for the lirst time we were let 
into a knowledge of the admirable management 
of our cabinet. When the instructions first ap- 
peared amongst us, tlie Berlin party added to the 
original charges of j)erfidy, those of fabrication 
and fraud ! In thus branding the instructions 
ihey seemed not to be aware, that if genuine, (as 
they undoubtedly were) they pointedly condemn- 
ed the proceedings of the })resident. 

The instructions commence with a recapitula- 
tion of the conversations which, before the non- 
inrercour>e law \vas passed, Messrs. Madinon, 
GaiLitin, and Smith luid with Mr. Erskine, and 
wiiich, a-reeablv to the wuhes of those gentle- 
men, Mr. Erskine had communicated to his go- 
vernment : these instructions Mr. Ersliine was 



57 

at liberty to sliow, and the President was bound 
to see in exteiiso. 

Having recited the substance of the conversa- 
tions, Mr. Canning says to Mr. Erskine — 

*' From the report of your conversations with 
Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin, and Mr. Smith, it ap- 
pears, 

" 1st. That the American government is prepar- 
ed in the event of his majesty's consenting to 
withdraw the orders in council of January and 
November, 1807,-to withdraw conteftiporaneous- 
ly on its part the interdiction of its harbors to ships 
of war, and ail non-intercourse and non-importa- 
tion acts, so far as respects Great Britain, leaving 
them in force with respect to France, and the 
powers which adopt or act under her decrees. 

" 2d. (What is of the utmost importance, as pre- 
cluding a new source of misunderstanding which 
might arise after the adjustment of the other ques- 
tions,) That America is willing to renounce, 
during the present war, the preten- ion of cany- 
ing on in time of war all trade with the enemy's 
colonies, from which she was excluded during 
peace. 

'^ 3d. Great Britain, for the purpose of securing 
the operation of the embargo, and of the bona fide 
intention of America to prevent her citizens from 
trading with France, and the powers adopting 
and acting under the French decrees, is to be 

8 



58 

considered as being at liberty to capture all such 
American vessels as may be found attempting to 
trade v»^ith the ports of any of these powers ; with- 
out which security iov the observance of the em- 
bargo, the raising it nominally with respect to 
Great Britain alone, would in fact raise it with 
respect to all the world. 

" On these coriditions his majesty would consent 
to withdraw the orders in council of January and 
November, 1 807, so far as respects America. 

"As the first and second of these conditions are 
the suggestions of persons in authority in Ameri- 
ca to you, and as Mr. Pinkney has recently, (but 
the first time) expressed to me his opinion that 
•there would be no objection on the part of his 
government to the enforcement by the naval 
po\v« • of Great Britain of the regulations of Ame- 
rica wii'h respect to France, and the countries to 
which these regulations continue to apply, but 
that hia government was itself aware, that with- 
out S'ich enforcement those regulations must be 
altogether nugatory ; I flatter myself that there 
wiU be no difficulty in obtaining a distinct and 
oilicial recognition of these conditions from the 
American government. 

" For this purpose you are at liberty to commu- 
nicate this despath in extknso to the American 
secretary of stats. 



59 

"Upon receiving through you, on the part of 
the American government, a distinct and official 
recognition of the three mentioned conditions^ his 
majesty vvlll lose no time in sending to America 
a formal and reguhir treaty. 

" Upon the receipt here of an official note, con- 
taining an engagement for the adoption by the 
American government, of the three conditions 
above specified^ his majesty will be prepared on 
the faith of such engagement, either immediately, 
(if the repeal shall have been immediate in Ame- 
rica) or on any day specified by the American 
government for that repeal, reciprocally to recal 
tJie orders in council, without waiting for the con- 
clusion of the treaty ; and you are authorized, 
in the circumstances herein described, to make 
such reciprocal engagements on his majesty's be- 
half." 

The President now found himself in a dilem- 
ma : Mr. Erskine had not obtained a compliance 
with any one of the conditions. Had then the Pre- 
sident a knowledge of them when he signed the 
agreement ? If he had, he sanctioned with his 
authority an arrangement which he was sensible 
was not only unauthorized, but forbidden by Mr. 
Erskine's instructions ; if he had not, the infer- 
ence is equally fatal : in this case he neglected 
the performance of a primary and obvious duty j 
that of seeing that the minister with whom he was 



60 

.treating was properly enipovvered, and taking 
care tluit he ticted according to his instructions ; 
it being a wAl established principlo of national 
law, that no goveninicnt is bound by the unau- 
thorized acts of an unauthorized minister. 

Perceiving the difficulties in which he was in- 
volved, and vYhich he had knowingly and elabo- 
rately produced, and being determined from the 
moment the intrigue was tirst planned, to this final 
consummation of it, to screen himself by charg- 
ing tile British government v/ith perfidy j the 
President now taxed his ingenuity for pretences, 
wherewith to support the accusation. 

But before I notice the shifts to which, under 
the President's directions, our accomplished Se- 
cretary had recourse, I must advert to the con- 
duct of the British government in a similar case. 

A main reason for the rejection of Messrs. Mon- 
roe and Pinkney's treaty made with England in 
December, 1 806, was, that in concluding it, those 
gentlemen had exceeded their instructions.* In 



* They were, however, of a different opinion. " We ace 
aware that our instructions impose on us the necessity of pro- 
viding satisfactorily for this great interest [impressment of 
seamen from merchant vessels] as one of the conditions on 
which a treaty shall be formed. But it does not appear that 
the fair object of that instruction will not be satisfied by the 



61 

notifying the rejection to the British government, 
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney remarked, that they 
were instructed by the President to say, that in 
making the treaty, they had exceeded their in- 
structions.* To this Mr. Canumg, having assert- 
ed that the treaty had been " concluded and 
signed on behaU' of the United States by agents 
duhj authorized for that purpose^"" thus replies : 
" Some of the considerations upon which the re- 
fusal of the President of the United States to 
ratify the treaty is founded, are such as can be 
matter of discussion only between the American 
government and its commissioners ; since it is not 
for his majesty to inquire whether, in the conduct 
of this negotiation, the commissioners of tho 
United States have failed to conform themselves, 
in any respect, to the instructions of their govern- 
ment. His majesty has therefore no option, but 

arrangement thus made." Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney's 
letter of November 11, 1806. 

" We have the pleasure to acquaint you, that we have this 
day agreed with the British commissioners to conclude a treaty 
on all the points which had formed the object of our negotia- 
tion, and on terms whicli we hope our government wiH ap- 
prove. Messrs, Monroe and Pinkney's letter of December 
Sr, 1806. 

* Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney's letter to Mr. Canning, Ju- 
ly 24, isor. 



6^ 

to acquiesce in the refusal of the President of the 
United States to ratify the treaty signed on the 
31st of December, 1806."t 

In this case, which with one or two excep- 
tions in favour of the British government was 
analogous to the disavowed arrangement of Mr. 
Erskine, the President had in his possession a 
brilliant lesson of distinguished dignity on a w-ell 
established principle of international law\ In the 
case of the rejected treaty, Messrs. Monroe and- 
Pinkney were furnished with a full power, which 
had been regularly exchanged, and both, on sign- 
ing the treaty, wrote to the President, that they 
had concluded it upon all the points of the nego- 
tiation, and on terms which they hoped he would 
approve. The President w^as, however, pleased 
to disavow the tres^ty, and to assign as a reason 
for the disavowal, a violation of instructions. 
And what said the British government to this ? 
Merely that the assertion of the President of a 
departure from instructions, " can be matter of 
discussion only between the American govern- 
ment and its commissioners j since it is not for his 
majesty to inquire whether, in the conduct of the 
negotiation, the commissioners of the United 



•j- Ml*. Canning's note to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, oi' 
October 22, 1807. 



68. 

States have failed to conform themselves, in arty 
respect, to the instructions of their government." 
Now if the views of the President had been 
correct, and his intentions fair, would he not, oa 
the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement, hav6 
held a similar language ? After Mr. Canning 
had notified Mr. Pinkney of the disavowal, and 
distinctly stated as a reason for it, that Mr. Er- 
skine had " acted not only not in conformity to 
his instructions, but in direct contradiction to 
them ;'' could the President, if he had wished to 
be on terms of amity with England, have que^ 
tioried the King's assertion of a violation of in- 
structions, and moreover accused him, in alleging 
that charge, of an odious and flagrant breach of 
individual veracity and national faith ? I think 
not. According to the doctrine of the British gov- 
ernment, officially and solemnly announced, ihe 
charge of a violation of instructions could " be 
matter of discussion only between" that govern- 
ment and Mr. Erskme.^ And the reason is obvi- 
ous : for what would the interference of another 
government import? Certainly a violent impu- 
tation of personal falsehood and bad national 
faith. Would not the sensitive Mr. Smith call this 
an insult ? Upon that princii)le the British govern- 
ment was aware, when the President assigned as 
a ground for his rejection of the treaty a viola- 
tion of instructions, that " it was not for his ma- 



64 

Jesty to inquire whether, in the conduct of the 
negotiation, the commissioners of the United 
States have failed to conform themselves, in any 
respect^ to the instructions of their government ;" 
siixce such an inquiry, however delicately con- 
ducted, would amount to an insult, and might 
terminate in war : it was therefore avoided by 
England, for she wished to be on terms of friend- 
ship with us : it was purposely commenced by the 
President, for a reason exactly the reverse. 

The shocking charge of perfidy, on which the 
President had originally fixed in the hope of in- 
ducing, by exciting anger, acquiescence in a 
continuance of the Berlin system, and eventually 
in a war with England, was now, if possible, to 
be speciously supported ; for there is no adminis- 
tration, however weak, wicked, or corrupt, tiiat 
is not obliged, in a free country, to pay some 
sort of deference to public opinion. 

With that view the letter of Mr. Secretary 
Smith to Mr. Erskine,* of August 9, 1809, was 
written. Perhaps it was concluded, that possibly 
some confessions might be drawn from Mr. Ers- 
kine, which would further the main design. 

The letter acknowledges the receipt from Mr. 
Pinkney of Mr. Canning's instructions of January 



Documents, p. 13. 



65 

23 ; recites the three conditions, upon a full re- 
cognition of which by the President Mr. Erskine 
was empowered to act ; asks '•' an explanation of 
the imputed conversations" of Messrs. Madison, 
Gallatin, and Smith with Mr. Erskine, on which, 
together with an advance from Mr. Pinkney, the 
three conditions were founded, or of which, more 
correctly speaking, they consisted; and con- 
cludes with slily observing, which was the lure 
for the wished-for-confessions : — " I however 
would remark, that had you deemed it proper to 
have communicated in extenso this letter, [the in- 
structions] it would have been impossible for the 
President to have perceived in its conditions, or 
in its spirit, that conciliatory disposition, which 
had been professed, and which, it was hoped, 
had really existed." 

Two points were to be gained : a denial, or 
such an explanation as might seem to the Berlin 
party to amount to a denial of the conversation 
with Mr. Erskine, and a declaration, that the 
President had not seen the instructions /// extenso. 

The first was essential to a removal from the 
vision of the multitude of that hypocrisy of our 
cabinet which now stared us in the face ; for if 
Mr. Canning had, in the instructions, cited cor- 
rectly the conversations of Messrs. Madison, 
Gallatin, and Smith with Mr. Erskine, it was 
apparent, that wliile those gentlemen were telling 

9 



06 

the people that the embargo, co-operating with 
the Berlin decree, would bring England to our 
feet in six months, they had not only no faith in 
their own declarations, but were privately im- 
ploring, through Mr. Erskine, even at the expense 
of our national independence, the mercy of the 
very government v\hich, assailed at once by the 
Parisian Hero and the Monticellian Sage, was to 
sink under their joint coercive strokes. They 
had already promised to an affrighted world, the 
deep damnation of its taking off. 

The Fecoad was equally material and equally 
disgraceful. If Mr. Erskine could be got to say, 
that the President had not seen the instructions 
in extemo^ a justification was triumphantly to be 
raised upon the basis of ignorance, and a flagrant 
neglect of official duty was to be converted into 
a claim to national support ! 

Much as our deep Secretary possibly might and 
-certainly did expect to draw from Mr. Erskine, 
he was disappointed. With regard to the first 
condition, it appears, as Mr. Canning observed, 
and as Mr. Erskine confirms,* to have been 
founded on the conversations which Mr. Erskinei 
had had with Mr. Madison ; except as to 2i pledge. 
But Mr. Erskine in his explanatory letter adds, to 



* See his reply to Mr. Secretary Smith, Documents, p. 15,» 



67 

the conversations imputed in the instructions, that 
Mr. Madison, in reference to the first condition, 
said : " in this case the United States would at 
once SIDE with that power against the other which 
might continue its"* orders or decrees. This, 
though not a pltdge, was a promise that if En- 
gland, upon a removal of our anti-commercial 
system, would recall her orders in council, the 
President would join her in arms against her 
French antagonist ; which w as promising much 
m.ore than Mr. Canning had required in the in- 
structions. " In these sentiments and opinions 
you (says Mr. Erskine to Mr. Secretary Smith) 
concurred, as I collected from the tenor of several 
conversations which I held with you at that pe- 

riod."t 

As to the second condition ; a relinquishment 
of the coionialtrade, Mr. Erskine asserts in the 
same explanatory letter that it was mentioned to 
him by Mr. Galkitin,^ and Mr. Gallatin, in sub- 
stance, confirms the assertion ;§ with the intima- 
tion, however, that the concession was not to be 
made as the price of a revocation of the orders, 
but as matter for treaty arrangement. 

Of the third condition, Mr. Erskine knew 
nothing : it was not said in his instructions to 



* Documents, p. 17. f Documents, p. 18. 

\ Documents, p. 19. § Documents, p. 'H. 



as 

have been authorised by the conversations at 
Washington, but by the suggestion of Mr. Pink- 
n3y in London. '* This condition, Mr. Secretary 
Smith says to Mr. Pinkney, appears to have had 
its origin in a mistake of your meaning in a con- 
versation with Mr. Canning, as noted by yourself, 
and from an inference thence deduced, as to the 
disposition of this government."* Mr. Pinkney 
then had really made a proposition of that kind 
to Mr. Canning, but, according to our intelligent 
secretary of state, Mr. Canning had mistaken Mr. 
Pinkney's meaning. 

Here are acknowledged the advances which 
had been made by Mr. Madison and Mr. Secre- 
tary Smith to Mr. Erskine, as to the first con- 
dition ; by Mr. Gallatin as to the second, and 
by Mr. Pinkney as to the third : it is also ad- 
mitted that Mr. Erskine had forwarded to his 
government, according to the wishes of Mr. Ma- 
dison,! those advances, and that Mr. Canning 
had been induced by them^ and by Mr. Pinkney's 
suggestion, to send out the conditions upon which 
Mr. Erskine was authorised to arrange the mutual 



'a'^- 



* Letter to Mr. Pinkney, Documents, p. 75. 

f Mr. Madison's " sentiments -vere, as I conceived, ex- 
pressed to me, in order that I might conve)' them to his ma_ 
jesty's government." Mr. Erskine to Mr. Secretary Smith 
Documents, p. 17. 



69 

repeal, but which conditions in iiiakii 
rangement he essentially disreg:... 

To call on Mr. Erskine, und n r; • ircum- 
stances, for an explanation of tiie conversations 
which in the instructions were imputed to Messrs. 
Madison, Gallatin, Pinkney and Smith, and that 
too with the obvious and reprehensible intent of 
conveying to the people of the United States an 
insinuation, that the conversations were errone- 
ously imputed, required that intrepidity of face 
and hardiness of conscience, upon which \ery 
criminal designs frequently levy very gross con- 
tributions. Mr. Smith knew, when with an air 
of seeming surprise he asked Mr. Erskine for an 
explanation, that the conversations, concisely re- 
hearsed by Mr. Canning, hud taken place at Wash- 
ington, and Mr. Erskine, in reply to the inquiry, 
told him so. Did Mr. Smith denv it ? Ko : he 
w^as totally silent ! 

On the other point, that of having seen the in- 
structions in cxtensn^ our illustrious secretary was 
not a whit more fortunate. " Under these cir- 
cumstances, therefore, finding, says Mr. Erskine, 
that I could not obtain the recognitions specified 
in Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d of January, 
in the formal manner required, I considered that 
it would be in vain to lay before the governtnent 
of the United States the despatch in question, 
which I was at liberty to have done in exte/iso had 



70 

I thooght proper." This declaration is accompa- 
nied with such remarks by Mr. Erskine as, if 
standing alone, would convince us, that though 
the despatch was not laid before the government 
in extenso, yet that the three conditions, as well as 
the limitation of Mr. Erkine s powers to a com- 
pliance with them on our part, undoubtedly were. 
This important fact is afterwards reluctantly ac- 
knowledged by Mr. Secretary Smith. " Certain 
it is," he says to Mr. Jackson, " that your prede- 
cessor did present for my consideration the three 
conditions.'"^ 

This is a confession that, substantially, Mr. 
Canning's instructions were submitted to the 
President in extemo. Of what did the instruc- 
tions consist ? Three items : a recapitulation of 
the conversations ; an able specification of the 
three conditions, which were drawn from those 
conversations ; and a very clear limitation of Mr. 
Erskine's powers to a recognition, on our part, of 
the conditions. With the conversations our cabi- 
net was already acquainted, for it was the very 
tongue that originally uttered them. Confessing 
then that the three conditions were submitted to 
the President, and, as will be seen by irrefragable 
^ inference, the limitation also, it follows, " as the 



♦ Documents, p. 46. 



71 

day the thing," that the despatch was in fact, if 
not in form, laid before the President in extenso. 

I now propose to show, that the President, hav- 
ing before him the three conditions, and knowing 
Mr. Erskine's limitations to a recognition of them 
by us, in all ^xohdih\X\tY persuaded that gentleman, 
contrary to his instructions, and therefore upon 
his own responsibility, to sign the arrangement 
in April last. 

The three conditions required, 

1st. A pledge for the maintenance of our re- 
strictive and prohibitory laws against France* 
when repealed as to England : 

2d. A renunciation of the belligerent colonial 
trade : 

3d. Permission to aid in the enforcement of 
our restrictive laws against France. 

The third condition, suggested by Mr. Pink- 
ney, w as, from the nature of it, inadmissible ; 
but Mr. Erskine had not on that account authori- 
ty to dispense with it. It appears, indeed, that 
he was '* disposed to urge them all more than the 
nature of two of them could permit, but finding 
his proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable 
terms comprised in the arrangement were adopt- 
ed.'^* 



* Secretary Smitb's letter to Mr. Jacksoa ; Doc. p. 4^. 



^ 



72 

How came these " more reasonable terms" to 
be substituted, contrary to the three conditions 
which not only required acomphance with them, 
but also, considering our extreme partiality for 
France and hostility to England, security, as men- 
tioned in the note accompanying the rejected 
treaty, for the bona fide fulfilment of them ? Mr. 
Erskine and Mr. Smith both tell us. 

" I consider it my duty to declare, says Mr. 
Erskine to Mr. Smith, that during my negocia- 
tion with you, which led to the conclusion of the 
provisional arrangement, I found no reason to 
believe that any difficulties would occur in the 
accomplishment of the two former conditions, as 
far as it was in the power of the President of 
the United States to accede to them ; on the 
contrary I received assurances through you that 
the President would comply (as far as it was in 
his power) with the first condition, and that 
there could be no doubt* that the Congress would 
think it incumbent upon them to assert the rights 
of the United States against such powers as should 
adopt or act under the decrees of France ; but 



* Surely there was doubt, and the fact jn-oved timt it was 
I)i^perly entertained. In direct violation of the agreement in 
April, and before we knew that it was disavowed, Congress 
(and this is the only ficrjidy in the transaction) so modified 



73 

that in the mean time, the President had not the 
power^ and could not undertake to pledge him- 
self in the formal manner required to that ef- 
fect."* 

" From the nature of our constitution, says 
Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, it is manifest, that the 
executive authority could have given no such 
pledge for the continuance of the prohibitory 
acts."t " The British government ought to have 
acquiesced in and been satisfied with the repeal 
of the prohibitory laws, because the prohibition 
as to France was then in force^ and because with- 
out a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibito- 
ry law^s would be continued in force against 
France."f 



tlie non-intercourse law, at the instance of Mr. Giles, the 
mouth-piece of the cabinet, while all the decrees of Napoleon 
were in full force, as to admit French armed ships into our 
harbours — possibly that they might prey upon the comnaerce 
of England, to which our ports were now opened. 

* Documents, p. 20-1, \ Documents, p. 78. 

X Documents, p. 79. Congress, as I have stated in the note 
above, gave the lie to this doctrine, and at the same time de- 
monstrated the necessity of a filedge. The prohibition to 
French armed vessels was taken off, without any modification 
of the Fi-ench decrees. 

10 



74 

The pledge required as to the first condition 
was, that on the reciprocal repeal, our prohibitory 
laws should be enforced against France, and the 
argument by which, contrary to his instructions, 
Mr. Erskine was persuaded by our cabinet to 
forego it, appears to have been this : the Presi- 
dent has no constitutional power to give the 
pledge which the terms of the condition exact, 
but the non-intercourse, including a prohibition 
of our waters, which is now in force against 
France, will no doubt be continued by Congress, 
until her decrees are repealed, and therefore the 
spirit of the condition, if not the terms of it, is 
complied with. And hence, being satisfied with 
this plausible argument, Mr. Erskine in another 
place says, that although he had " formed an er- 
roneous judgment of the " intention of his in- 
structions,"* he thought he had " attained the 
spirit of them at least. "t 

The same process of subduing argument and 
captivating persuasion was used by the President 
as to the second condition. " I received also as- 
surances from you, Mr. Erskine says to Mr. 
Smith, that no doubt could be reasonably enter- 
tained that a satisfactory arrangement might be 
made upon the subject of the second condition 



* Documents, p. '?2. f Documents, p. 21. 



75 

mentioned in Mr. Canning's instructions, but 
that it necessarily would form an article of a 
treaty, in which the various pretensions of the 
two countries should be settled."* 

Here also, the condition as to the colonial trade 
being promised to be complied with in the future 
treaty which was conditio nail y adverted to by Mr. 
Canning in his instructions, Mr. Erskine had in 
his opinion "attained the spirit^' although he 
confesses that he had dispensed with the terms of 
his instructions. 

And Mr. Gallatin confirms, in his inquiring 
letter, the promise of the concession which Mr. 
Erskine tells Mr. Smith the President had made 
on the second condition. " Such an arrangement, 
says Mr. Gallatin, could be effected only by treaty. 
The concession was not meant as the price of the 
revocation of the orders."! It was, however, to be 
made, and as an assurance that it would he was 
given, Mr. Erskine, concluding that he had '* at- 
tained the spirit of his instructions," was induced 
to sign the disavowed arrangement.! 

* Documents, p. 21. f Documents, p. 24, 

X As to the third condition, that of aiding by the Britisli 
navy the enforcement of the prohibitory laws against Francey 
when repealed as to England, Mr. Erskine says to Mr. Smith : 
♦' Yoa certainly iBformed me that it cottld not be recognized 



76 

Can tlie result be mistaken ? It is evident, 

1st. That Mr. Canning's instructions of Janu- 
ary 23, 1809, were a consequence of the con- 
versations at Washington, and the suggestion of 
Mr. Pinkney in London : 

2d. That the instructions, though not in form, 
were yet in fact submitted to the President in ex- 
tenso: 

3d. That by the arguments of the President 
and his very able Secretary of State, Mr. Erskine 
was induced to dispense with the terms of his 
instructions, having, as he no doubt was made 
to think, *' attained their spirit :" 

4 th. That the President knew that Mr. Erskine 
had signed an agreement contrary to his instruc- 
tions, and by which, therefore, his government 
was not bound : and yet, 

5th. That the British government, in order to 
mask all this management, was to be accused by 
the President of perfidy -> fot" disavowing an ar- 
rangement, to which, being absolutely void by a 

by the president; but you added what had great weight in 
my mind, that you did not see njohy any imfiortance should be 
attachrd to such a r'^co^nitinn ; because it would be imfiossible 
that a citizen of the United States could firefer a complaint 
to his government, on account of the ca/iture of hi* vessel, 
while employed in a trade absolutely interdicted by the laws of 
/U* country .'" Documents, p. 21. 



77 

complete failure of the required recognitions, she 
could not adhere. The known violation by the 
President of the power vested in him by the 
non-intercourse law, in taking off, on the conclu- 
sion of such an arrangement, the commercial re- 
strictions, was an effect of the original intention 
to increase, when the arrangement should be 
disavowed, popular prejudice and clamour against 
England. 

But as popular clamour, though it too long 
supports, could not justify the President ; and as 
the President, the transaction being laid before 
the nation, could not vindicate himself, art was 
yet to find out a cover large enough^ if possible, 
to hide itself. 

Happily for our cabinet the Britifch government 
appointed Mr. Jackson as the successor of Mr. 
Erskine. 

The new minister, with a suavity of manner 
and conciliatory disposition unsuited to the views 
of the President, had been the bearer of a mes- 
sage from his government to the court of Copen- 
hagen, which, according to his duty, he had de- 
livered. The message having announced the in- 
tention of Bonaparte, who was approaching 
Stralsund, to seize the Danish fleet and employ 
it against England, required its surrender to 
Great Britain until the peace, when, in the order 
in which it should be deposited, it was to be re- 



78 

stored. A discussion of the expediency of that 
measure would not comport with the immediate 
subject of this work. It is sufficient to say, that 
as the requisition, and what followed, effectually 
counteracted one of Napoleon's plans for the sub- 
jugation of the world, even the minister who 
bore the message, and who had no other agency 
in the act, was very unpopular with the Presi- 
dent, as well as with many of his supporters. 

No sooner w^as Mr. Jackson's appointment 
known than, before his arrival amongst i/s, our 
ministerial papers began to prepare the public 
mind for that dismission, upon which the Pre- 
sident had already decided* as the only means of 



* Mr. Adams, when he went put as ministei* to Petersburgh, 
was made acquaintL d with the determination of the President 
first to receive Mr. Jackson as a disguise, and finally to reject 
him upon a charge which he thought would most readily be 
believed, namely, an insult. When Mr. Adams arrived in 
Europe he communicated to the French government the deci- 
sion of the President, and a French senator, before the dis- 
vtissal took place in Jjnerica, announced it to Europe! " The 
Ambassador to Russia [Mr. Adams] is arrived, he said, at 
Copenhagen. The Americans have rejected the Eni^lish 
minister, Mr. Jackson. Ever) thing then induces us to be- 
lieve, that by supporting nobly the contest in which we are 
engaged, by honor and well understood interest, the Ameri- 
cans will not lose sight of the memorable words addressed f 



79 

veiling his transactions with Mr. Erskine. They 
were lilled with " Copenhagen Jackson j" with 
assertions that a fleet would follow him to " Co- 
penhagen New- York ;" with invitations to the po- 
pulace to " tar and feather" the minister on his 
arrival, and with everlasting declarations that he 
was sent hither by his perfidious government 
merely to " insalt" us. The sequel will shew how 
correct the understanding was between the Pre- 
sident and his principal papers. 

Four weeks after the acknowledgment of Mr. 
Jackson at Washington, it was solemnly an- 
nounced in the government print there, that the 
President, having been outrageously " insvlted** 
by the minister, had notified him, that no more 
communications would be received from Jwn. 
The annunciation w^as made about two weeks 
before the meeting of congress, to whom the 
correspondence, in which it was said Mr. Jackson 
had insulted the government, was to be submit- 
ted. 



them by his Majesty the Emfieror of the French, through the 
medium of his miiiister for Foreign Affairs'" [ Chamfiagny.'] 
-Seethe Mercantile Advertiser of Januarys, 18ld As the 
•' memorable words of Chanipagny" have been carefully- 
locked up in Mr. Jefferson's desk, where they have been as 
carefully kept, we do not exactly know what they are, but no 
Body can mistake their meaning. 



80 

Meanwhile declamations daily issued from the 
press, on the atrocious i?isult which *' Copenha- 
gen Jackson" had offered to the President, and, 
therefore, to the people. Town meetings, as 
usiml, were called, and resolutions valiantly en- 
tered into, to resist all attempts " to Copenhagen 
us." Adulatory addresses were presented to the 
President, humbly thanking him for his fatherly 
care, and applauding his wisdom, firmness, and 
dignity, in so prom])tly repelling an insult^ with 
which every man at the meeting was so well ac- 
quainted. Here was a feast for the President ! 
Here was ignorance and folly, in which crime 
might find refuge ! By thus prepossessing the pub- 
lic mind belief was entertained in the existence 
of an insult which, when the correspondence was 
submitted to Congress, could not be discovered. 

Aware of this our illustrious Secretary thought 
fit to designate c nd explain it in the despatch* 
which, after the dismission of Mr. Jackson, he 



'* The despatch was published by the President for discus- 
sion in our taverns before it was received by Mr. Pinkney ! 
This was indeed " lowering the dignity of official station." 
Whether the British government will or will not deem it in- 
tonsistent with diplomatic decorum to receive from Mr. Pink- 
ney any communication which niay be grounded upon it, I 
cannot determine. 



81 

addressed to our minister in London ; and as his 
explanation is the best definition of the insult 
which our ingenious Secretary could giYe us, I 
will introduce it to the reader as the test of the 
charge : it is not indeed clear, but the obscurity 
will be ascribed to the difficulty v>"hich is always 
felt in explaining what the mind does not per- 
ceive. 

" It was never objected to him, Mr, Secretary 
Smith says to Mr. Pinkney, that he had stated it 
as a fact, that the three propositions in question 
had been submitted to me by Mr. Erskioe, nor 
tiiat he stated it, as made known to him by the 
instructions of Mr. Canning ; that the iiiiruc- 
tion to ?vlr. Erskine, containing thote three 
conditions, was the only one from which his 
authority was derived to conclude an arrange- 
ment in the matter to which it related. The ob- 
jection was, that a knowledge of this restriction 
of the authority of Mr. Erskine was imputed to 
this government, and the repetition of the impu- 
tation even after it had been peremptorily dis- 
claimed. This w^as so gross an attack on the 
• honor and veracity of this government as to for- 
bid all further communications from him."* 

Mr. Jackson had assured Mr. Smith that Mr. 
Canning's instructions of January 2a, 1809, were 
the only instructions in reference to the arrange- 



* Documents, p. sr-~P. 

11 



S2 

tMneat which Mr. Er-kine bad rpceived : possilly 
the lucid Air. Sciith iiie;iDs m that test ex^A^nadion 
of the i.^stdt with which be his fa veered us-, th&t 
iir. Jickfoii impared to ihe FT€::^ide!lt a know- 
ledge ol the faict. llie truth of Mr. ^iiihh's as- 
seited impiiL&siaii I wHl examine j^resently. 

The iMi:elt dien conrist^ in impaling to the Pre- 
fkieiit a knowledge oi the restriction ; that is to 
ssx. that Mr. Errkli^ had no instructions aj 
to the arrangement tut &ost cf January 3-^. 
Xcw if this be an insult npon what is it found- 
ed ? Clearhr udou the i^norGtKt of the President : 
upon die negation of all knowledge of all instmc- 
tions but those of January 2"i. What follows ? That 
the President, having seen tho?e instruction?- and 
havii^ no knowledb^e of any other, made the 
agreement in the face of instructions which ah- 
soli^elj f jrbade it, and which agreement he of 
coarse knew was not obUgatory on ElngLind. 
There is no resisting this conclusion. 

Boi tike the other side of the question, the 
only one which accordii^ to the exj^anation of 
the Logical Mr. Smith remains, and the argument 
s'lands thus: Although the President did not 
know that diere was no other instruction, yet 
tiierc mi^it have been another : Mr. Smith says 
Jae PrcJdfcnt Ql^A rM know that there was ftot: 
D.i he kncm tkokS. there vras ? If he did not, and 
i£ is cuiife^siid that lie did not, then with regard 



83 

to the President and the agreement, there were no 
instmctions but those of Jannary 23 ; eon^ecjuent- 
ly the same cocclasion follows : namely, that the 
President had no knowledge of anj ui^tnictions 
but those of January 23, which prohibited the 
agreement. 

I now proceed to evince, in contraoiv-tion to 
Mr. Smith, that Mr- Jaci?on did not impute to the 
President a knowledge of what Mr. Smiih is 
pleased to term the rxrs friction ; and therefore 
that the erroneous assertion of Mr. Secretary 
Smirh is but the pretext for that dismission, upon 
which the President had resolved before the ar- 
rival of the minister. 

'' It was never objected to bim, that he had 
stated it as a fact, that the three propositions in 
question had been submitted to me by Mr. Er- 
skine : the objection was, that a knowledge of 
this restriction of the authority of Mr. Ersk;ne 
was imputed to thi? government." 

Now it will apj^ar that that which Mr. Smith 
says was not tlie objection, avzs the objection, 
and that that which he says tcos the object i:.. 
was not the obieciion. 

Bilr. Smith in his third letter to Mr. Jackson 
says : " It would be improper to conclude the few 
observations to which I purposely liciit myself, 
without adverting to your repetition of a lan- 
guage implying a knowledge on ihe part of this 



84 

government, that the instructions of your prede- 
cessor did not authorize the arrangement formed 
by hijn. The view which you have again pre- 
seiii' d of the subject makes it my duty to ap 
prise you, that such insinuations ai-e inadmissible 
in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a 
government that understands what it owes to it. 
self."* The next letter of Mr. Smith, which is 
very concise, informed Mr. Jackson, who had 
mildly insisted on the truth of vvhat he had 
stated, that no more communications would be 
received from him. 

Except the alarming designs of the President, 
tlie more alarming manner of carrying them into 
effect, and the dreadful consequences v.'hich may 
result to the nation, the trifiingness of the Secre- 
tary's conduct is calculated rather to excite con- 
tempt than to dispose one to serious argument. 

What is the objection advanced against Mr. 
Jackson in the above extract from Mr. Smith's 
letter ? It is this : " It would be improper to 
conclude without adverting to your repetition of 
a language implying a knowledge on the part of 
this government that the instructions of your 
predecessor did not authorize the agreement 
formed by him." Mr. Jackson hud used no such 

* Documents, p. 66 — 7 . 



85 

liumio^e ; but in order to test the trutb of Mr. 
Sniitirs charge, I will adniit that he had : what 
then is the hict ? I assert that the President did 
know that Mi. Erskine's instructions did not au- 
thorize the agreement ronned by him, and I prove 
it thus. Whatever he may hii.\e hoped or be- 
heved, or have wished to hope or beheve, it is 
admitted that the President had no knowledge of 
any instructions but tho^e of January 25. Did 
these the tb:ve conditions of which it is also ad- 
mitted the President saw, authorize the agree- 
ment ? No ; on the contrary they forbade it, 
unless the conditions were complied with by us, 
and we all know that they svere not. If, there- 
fore, Mr. Jackson had used a langn?:ge implying 
a knowledge on the part of the President that 
Mr. Erskine's instructions did not authorize him 
to form the agreement, that lang^ipge, however 
ungracious and unwelcome, v;ould nevertheless 
have been tn/e ; for as to the knowledge and 
even the enquiries of the President, Mr. Ers- 
kine had no authority to form the agreement but 
that which the President saw, namely, the three 
conditions of January 23. 

But Mr. Jacks ?n had used no such lan.o-uao-e. 

o o 

The sentences which it suited the designs of the 
President to call insultt?:g^ occur in Mr. Jackson's 
letter of October 23, and are these : " I have, 
therefore, no hesitation in informing you, that 



86 

his majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement 
concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because 
it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's 
instructions, and alto2:ether v.ithout authority to 
subscribe to the terms of it. These instructions, 
I now understand by your letter, were at the 
lime, in &uhstanct\ made known to you ; no 
stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of 
the deviation from them which occurred, than by 
a reference to the terms of your agreement."* 

This is the offensive passage ; this the insult 
for which Mr. Jackson is dismissed, and the na- 
tion, by the President and his minions, sum- 
moned to arms ! 

And of what does it con.^ist ? The assertion, 
that the instructions, which did not authorize the 
agreement, were, in substance^ made known to 
the President ! Is not that the fact ? What was 
the substance of the instructions ? The three con- 
ditions. Wf^iQ they not made known to the Pre- 
sident ? I have already shown that they were ; 
and Mr. Secretary Smith confesses the fact. — 
" Certain it is, he says, that your predecessor o'/rf 
present for my consideration the three co?idi- 
iions.'"'\ Who then can discover any insi/lt but 
that which the President has given in purposely 



* Documents, p. 59. | DucuniCiits, p. 46. 



87 

and with system refusing to receive communica- 
tions from a minister, sent amongst us in good 
faith, and, in a spirit of friendship, to assist in 
restoring to the two nations their wonted com- 
mercial intercourse ? Inhere is noihiRg in the 
passage, stigmatized as it is with ojftiicc^ which 
imputes the restriction of knowledge, for which 
Mr. Secretary Smith avers to Mr. Finkney tiie 
minister %vas dismissed ; it only asierts, what is 
true, that the President had seen, in si/bstance, 
the instructions, for which Mr. Smith says he 
was not rejected ! 

Here I might close, and feel disposed to do so, 
having extended my observations, concise as I 
have wished to be, to a much greater length 
than I originally intended : but there remain for 
notice important circumstances, with many of 
which, however, I must dispense. 

The determination of the President eventually 
to reject Mr. Jackson, to perpetuate, by doing ?o, 
the commercial differences, ami to keep up, if not 
to increase, hostile passions, are in nothing more 
manifest than that paltry ixwd false accusation up- 
on which the rejection is founded. In all this 
management the President has, however, been 
consistent. The finale naturally and regularly 
succeeded the commencement. 

Five wi'eks after the conclusion of the asrrce- 
ment at Washington, Mr. Canning notiiicd the 



88 

disavowal to Mr. Piiikney in Lo?Klon ; stated the 
reasons which had induced it, namely, that it was 
*' made not only not in conformity but indirect 
contradiction to instructions;" announced the 
recall of the minister who had made it, and the 
appointment of r. Jackson to " proceed to Ame- 
rica, not on any special n^ission, but as the suc- 
cessor of Mr. Erskine." Nothing speciaU there- 
fore, was to be looked for. The disavowal had 
been officially communicated to our minister in 
London, and otliciuliy repeated by Mr. Erskine 
at Washington. This was all that was necessary 
or could be expected, for as the President had 
founded the agreement upon an unaccountable 
faith in the existence of instructions which had 
not been mentioned, of which he had himself no 
knowledge, and for which he had made no in- 
quiry ; in opposition to instructions which he had 
seen and read, and which forbade the agreement, 
the error was his own, and the consequence should 
have been quietly and patiently borne. 

But though, under these circumstances,, the 
President had no right to expect any thing spe- 
cial from Mr. Jackson, being otlicially informed 
that Mr. Jackson was not charged with any thing 
speciul, yet the minister no sooner arrives than 
(the President concluding that he could give no 
ex}>lanation) he is solemnly called upon by ?vlr. 
Smith to assign reasons for the disavowal of the 
LofC. 



»9 

arrangement, <' accompanied by a substitution 
of other propositions."* Mr. Jackson replied 
that as the explanation had already been given 
both at London and Washington, he was " not 
provided Vvith instructions to that effect." This, 
as grc;at noise was still to be made about per- 
fidy^ was very agreeable to our cabinet. Mr. 
Smith, therefore, again calls on Mr. Jackson 
with increased zeal to explain the disavowal, al- 
leging, that the President " per&ists in the opinion 
that none has been given that is adequate^X 
Great cunning often defeats itself. Mr. Jackson 
explained, though not particularly charged to do 
so. " It could not enter into my view, he ob- 
serves, to withhold from you an explanation, 
merely because it had been already given, but 
because, having been so given, I could not ima- 
gine, until informed by you, that a repetition of 
it would be required at my hands."§ He then 
repeats the reasons for the disavowal which I 
have already quoted, and which, though quite 
satisfactory as a disavowal, was next construed 
into that insult for which he was dismissed ! 

Well, says Mr. Smith, but though you have 
assigned satisfactory reasons for the disavowal, 
you have not made propositions in lieu of the dis- 
avowed arrangement, and the Presideiit learns 

* Documents, p. 28. \ Documents, p. 34. 

% Documents, p. 42. § Documents, p. 59. 

12 



90 

with deep regret that you are not charged to 
make them. If, Mr. Jackson replied, I am not 
charged with such instructions, it is because those 
which have been already made are not agreeable 
to the President, and because his majesty does 
not know what would be, but I am authorised to 
** receive and discuss any proposals made on the 
part of the United States, and eventually to con- 
clude a convention between the two countries^"* 
upon all the points of difference. All along we 
have said that we are the injured party, yet unlike 
other injured parties we have refused to say what 
would satisfy us ; but some how taking it for 
granted, perhaps from the word eventually having 
been made emphatical by Mr. Jackson, that he 
had no power to ** conclude a treaty on all our 
differences," and that if he had not, the Tartar 
would be caught, and the President saved, Mr. 
Smith said that '* a full power had now become an 
indispensable preliminary to further negotiation."! 
This would indeed have been a fell sivoop if the 
minister had not been furnished with one, but, 
said Mr. Jackson, " in addition to the usual cre- 
dential letter, his majesty has been pleased to in- 
vest me with a full power, under the great seal of 
his kingdom, for the express purpose of conclud- 
ing a treaty or convention ; and I have only now 
to add, that I am ready, whenever it suits your 

* Documents, p. 63. f Documents, p. 66. 



9i 

convenience, to exchange my full power against 
that with which you shall be provided for the pro- 
gress of the negotiation,"* 

All this was in the letter which contained the 
insult ; no wonder, therefore, that the President, 
having an opportunity to conclude a treaty upon 
all the points of ditlerence between the two na- 
tions, and scarcely knowing how to escape from 
the evil^ now carried into effect his original in- 
tention of alleging an imiilt^ and dismissing the 
minister upon it. He did so ! 

The Chesapeake offence remains to be noticed, 
satisfaction for which was tendered and accepted 
by the President, in April last. This makes, of 
course, a }>rominent figure in Mr. Smith's corres- 
pondence, and he is vehement upon it in propor- 
tion as he fancies the minister has no power to 
make re})aration. But when Mr. Jackson propo- 
sed, in writing, terms of satisfaction,! the same 
as those which were accepted in April, and stated 
that he was empowered to carry them into hnme- 
diate ejfett^ no answer was given ! Eehig a 
subject which the nation feelo, the President is 
not an>:ious for its adjustment. 

Such are the views^and conduct of our execu- 

* Documents, p. ~\. 

\ Those who have any curiosity on this subject, will fmcl, 
on a comparison, thut the terms accepted in April, and thosr 
offered by Mr. Jackson, are in reality the same. Mr. Jack- 
son, however, claimed, what Mr. Madison had proposed to 
Mr. Rose, and what is just, that the recall of the proclamatiou 
and acceptance of satisfaction, should be contemporaneous 
acts. 



09 

live ; such the patience and suffering of the 
nation. What the issue will be God onlv^ knows. 
That we are charmed by tlie Corsican serpent, 
I am sure, and that we are destined, by the 
measures of our Executive, to fall a prey, like 
other nations, to his wiles and force, I have fear- 
ful apprehensions. England will not in all proba- 
bility send out another minister. Why should 
she ? We have then no prospect of an adjust- 
ment of our differences with her, unless, utterly 
abandoning the imperial councils by which we 
ai'C governed, and relinquishing the commercial 
warfare with which we are cursed, we meet her 
upon those equitable conditions which, through 
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, she j^roposed to us 
in December, 1806. We cannot, however, ex- 
pect this while the President obtains suj)port 
from party leaders, who derive emolument from 
the calamities of their country, and from party 
dupes, who may be the cause of its ruin. But to 
new measures new men are essential. A change 
in the administration of this state, would occa- 
sion a change of measures in the national govern^ 
ment. To effect so muck good., no effort should 
be spared. Party distinctions should be merged 
in the superior considerations of public safety. 
Party men should elevate their ideas to the na- 
tion, which from the brink of the grave, now 
calls upon them for assistance. No aid can be 
expected from the President, who, whether 



93 

knowingly and designedl/ or not, is pushing the 
iia?ion into an abyss of perdition. I think I see 
her in the sorrow-exciting })light of Hohand ; 
first deluded and next conquered. He who laves 
his country, should, like me, momentarily abstract 
himself fiom party discipline. Power should be 
shifted when ])o\Aer is abused. Upon this })rin- 
ciple Dr. Johnson declared, that had he lived in 
the reign of Ann, he ^vould have been a whig— ^ 
merely to assist in counteracting tory excesses. 
What could be more wise 1 In '98 I opposed the 
reign of terror^ helped to achieve the victory of 
1800, and continued to su}>port republican men 
■until I found, that under that name, rank tory 
measures were maintained at home and something infinite- 
ly worse abroad. Should not these be opposed by every 
man who values first tlie independence and next the free- 
dom of his country ? I am convinced that if the Berlin , 
party succeed in the approaching eketion of this state, either 
immediate war with England, so delightfully contemplated 
and eagerly sought, or a long continuance of our Berlin 
system, upon which the executive is intent, will be the na- 
tural and necessary issue. I hoyc that suttlcient has not 
been done Kq force England to declare war against us. I 
trust that she will not permit hericif to be /breed into a 
measure so injurious to her and ruinous to us. We are 
indeed already leagued with France hi fact if not in form. 
Is it true that Mr. Adams was sent to Petersburgh to con* 
cert through Alexander an alliance with Napoleon? Is it 
true that the project of such an alliance is now before our 
cabinet, aiid that the late and present divisions therein have 



94 

arisen upon it ?* I have, I confess, my fears. All the 
measures of the President for the last four years have had 
a direct tendency to it. Whether the nation can be wrought 
up by executive arts to a pitch fit for the reception of an 
alliance with the French Emperor, no matter by what 
name called, whether an armed neutralityf to conquer the 
freedom of the seas, or, as usual, the freedom of the land, 
I know not ; if it can, we are an undone people, and if it 
cannot, it will be because it must be made impossible. I 
feel no sort of hesitation in saying, that as an alliance 
with Napoleon could be considered in no other light than 
that of a warrant for our national execution, it ought to be 
duly resisted by every man who sets any value on his li- 
berty and life. That it will come to an alliance and the 
inevitable effects of an alliance, even if the project be not 
now before the cabinet at Washington, is certain, unless 
the amazing career of the President can be arrested. Every 
act of recession from amity with England propels us to a 

* Messrs. Gallatin and Hamilton arc said to be opposed, 
and the President and his Secretary Smith for it. The Doc- 
tor who is Seci'etary at War, is neuter. 

f Mr. Sawyer, a member of the house of representatives 
from North Carolina, and one of the Presideni's friends, said in 
the house he " was afraid that Napoleon would convene a 
congress to establish tlie principles of the armed neutrh- 
TY, without fiermitting us to participate in it''' I See Mr. 
Lang's Gazette of Januar ' 19, 1810, where the speech is i-e- 
ported. The infatuated representative was suffered to make 
the slavish and atrocious remark without a rebuke ! What can 
we expect from the ruling party when we find its representa- 
tives in Congress thus inviting national subjugation ? What 
can Bonaparte think of us but that we are ripe for his purpo- 
ses ? Sawyer was an advocate for the embargo, as well as for 
all the other congenial measures of Mr. Jefferson and his suc- 
cessor. 



95 

coalition with France. War against England and an al- 
liance with France are unavoidably one and the same thing. 
And what advantage could we gain from war with En- 
gland ? If we take possession of the territories in the 
North, can she not ravage our extended coast ? Can she 
not inflict as much injury upon us as we can inflict upon 
her ? But, joining our arms to those of Kapoleon, we can 
destroy her : so say the President and his Berlin friends ! 
Granted — I will admit that which is impossible in fact : 
she is then dead : say so. What now can prevent Napo- 
leon from turning upon us and annihilating us in turn? 
Recollect that one half of our population is French at heart 
— affected with the mania — rotten to the core, and that 
two-thirds of the other are seized w-ith despair : What then 
could we do ? What if we were healthful — national — 
united — vigorous? V/here are our means? We have 
no money in the treasury; the able man who is at the 
head of our fiscal department tells us so, and that whether 
we have war or peace we must resort to LOANS. Could 
we prevent a landing in our territory ? ^^>.ere are our 
ships ? Do not forget that England is gone, and that the 
Universal Conqueror is in possession of her fleet. 
Where then are our ships wherewitl^ to keep off the 
swarms with which the modern Atilla would overwhelm 
us? Do you turn to our Philosophical Gun Boats? This 
is no time for laughing. Do you rely on Torpedoes? 
Would you risk your all on a "Jiat scow ?" You cannot 
then keep them off: the legions of honour and dishonour 
land. What will you do with them ? Twenty-five mil- 
lion of Germans, well armed and disciplined, and con- 
ducted by experienced generals, have been vanquished. 
Eighty millions on the continent have been made either to 



96 

bite the dust, or quietly to be ground into powder. Could 
tve triumph when tkey have perished ? 

But we will have war with England and no alliance 
■with France : very well ; if that be possible k^t it be so. 
Look at what must ibilow ? Old Spain is conquered : Yes, 
we have rendered all the aid we could towards the con- 
quest and rejoiced at the event. The Floridas belong to 
France, who will pour into them a sufficient number of 
troops to menace Cuba and Mexico, if not us. Would you 
permit French troops to occupy the Floridas ? If we do we 
are a ruined nation ; and if we do not we come into con- 
tact with France, and must therefore make peace witli Eng- 
land upon sucii terms as w^e could get. This w^ould be ui- 
evitable. And we ought not in case of war with the French 
in the Floridas to calculate on the interposition of the Bri- 
tish navy, to prevent reinforcements. It would be her in- 
terest, and undoubtedly her policy, to permit France to 
annoy us. And who should lead our armies ? Wilkinson? 
The man who as commander-in-chief has already sold him- 
self to Spain ! Could he resist the allurements of Napoleon ? 
Would not the insignia of the legion of honour purchase 
him ? We have now no Washington. What then 
might become of our Republican institutions ? Would they 
be in no danger ? Might not some Napoleon arise amongst 
us, and, amid the clangor of arms, finish our party contests 
by seating himself upon a throne ? 

This is indeed a Crisis. In whatever light the measures 
of the executive are viewed, the}^ are ruinous. I have de- 
scribed the cause and developed the design. Shall it be ac- 
coniplivshcd ? The nation only can answer. Good men 
will do their duty. He that loves his country cannot now 
be remiss. 

THE END. 



I 



